Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SAINT THOMAS APOSTLE (QUEEN STREET) CHURCHYARD BILL

As amended considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

State House, Holborn and Empress State Building, Earls Court

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Works what annual rent his Department will pay for State House, Holborn, and for the Empress State Building, Earls Court, respectively.

The Minster of Works (Lord John Hope): It is not my policy to publish details of commercial transactions such as leases, and I cannot therefore disclose the rent of the Empress State Building. The rent of State House has already been published in a company prospectus. It is £312,000 a year.

Mr. Stewart: Would the Minister agree that the rend of the other one is £299,000 a year, and why is it that if other people can make this information public, he cannot tell the House of Commons? Further, is not it the policy of the Government to discourage the multiplication of office employment in Central London? Why is it that the Government let it be understood that if the builders of office accommodation cannot find a market the Government will take it off their hands?

Lord John Hope: A lot of Government office personnel has been placed out of London, and we shall do all we can to continue this. Obviously we must

have some in London so long as London is the headquarters of the machine. I cannot add to what I have said about rents. I am sure it is in the interests of the taxpayers with regard to future commercial transactions that I should not divulge what rents I am trying to get on their behalf.

Mawley Hall, Shropshire

Mr. Denis Howell: asked the Minister of Works (1) to whom Mawley Hail, Shropshire, has been sold as a result of his Department's activities; what was the price obtained for the hall; and how much land was sold with it;
(2) why he undertook the sale of Mawley Hall, Shropshire; what inquiries he made concerning the owners' reasons for wishing to sell the Hall without having occupied it; what was the cost to public funds of the advertising and sales services carried out; how much has been charged by him for the use of these services by his Department; and on whose behalf the sale was effected.

Mr. Tomney: asked the Minister of Works if he will make a statement concerning the circumstances involved in the sale by his Department of Mawley Hall, Shropshire.

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Works what discussions he has had with the new owner of Mawley Hall, Shropshire, and with the previous owner, on the subject of improvement grants; what offers have been made for the property; and what is the amount of public money involved.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Works why his Department have taken part in the sale of Mawley Hall, Shropshire.

Lord John Hope: With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 together.

Mr. Denis Howell: Why?

Lord John Hope: I think it is better to tell the whole story at once. Mawley Hall, an early 18th century house of outstanding architectural importance, was bought by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) in November, 1960. He agreed to defer proposals to demolish it and redevelop the site so that attempts could be made


to find a purchaser who would preserve it. I then referred the case to my Historic Buildings Bureau, which helps to find uses for historic buildings. I did not undertake the sale, but because the situation was urgent I decided in July, 1961, to advertise the property. The cost was £433 15s. and was borne by my Department. Several inquiries were received and were referred to the owner's agents. The property was bought by Mr. A. M. G. Galliers-Pratt at, I understand, the district valuer's valuation.
On the recommendation of the Historic Buildings Council I have offered, and the purchaser has accepted, a grant of £60,000 towards the cost of necessary structural repairs. I do not make grants for improvement. To secure the preservation of this outstanding house by other means would, I am sure, have involved greater demands on public funds.

Mr. Howell: Is not it monstrous that in the middle of a pay pause the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) should be assisted by the Ministry to the tune of £33,000, plus a gift to the purchaser of £60,000 to put it in order, making a capital gain for him of something approaching £10,000? Is it not the fact that the hon. Member for Brierley Hill bought this Hall and 121 acres of land for £15,000 and that in fact the Hail and 80 acres were subsequently sold by the Ministry for nearly £22,000, so that if we take the cash gain plus the land gain a capital gain in all of about £10,000 has occurred in the middle of this pay pause, as a result of the activities of the Ministry, to the hon. Member for Brierley Hill? Is it not further scandalous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it not scandalous that one of the byproducts is that the hon. Member for Brierley Hill did not live in this house and never intended to live in it but asked Ludlow District Council to terminate the water supply to one of the tenants of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. All the previous questions in that one supplementary question were in order but the last one was not.

Lord John Hope: It is not for me to express opinions about anyone's motives here. I cannot do that. What I did was

my duty as I conceived it to save this house from destruction. I have told the House that as far as I understand—and this is not really my business—the price was the district valuer's valuation. If incidentally there was a profit involved that has nothing to do with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—nothing whatever. I cannot and will not refuse to try to save a building of this sort of quality because someone may say to me in the House of Commons, "You should not have done this because someone has made a profit". That would not be the right nor the courageous way to go about it.

Mr. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we all agree with the general principle of his action and hope that he will repeat it in principle in similar cases, but with a safeguard for the taxpayers' money? What I should like him to tell us is why £430 odd which was spent on advertising this property was borne on his Vote and why he was not reimbursed out of the capital profit made by the original owner of the property?

Lord John Hope: Time was of the essence here. It was urgent to prevent demolition. That is what I mean. I realised that unless I acted quickly and advertised there might not be advertisement, and it would have been wrong for me to shirk that as well.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it became urgent? Did it become urgent before the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) purchased or subsequent to that purchase? Can he answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) as to whether when the hon. Member for Brierley Hill subsequently got a seller he made a gain of so many acres of land—above 40 acres—apart from the profit he made on the building? Is it not a thoroughly disreputable practice that a Government Department should appear to be conniving at a capital gain made by one of the Government's friends?

Lord John Hope: I do not quite know what the hon. Member was driving at in his last sentence, which seemed to be an unnecessary and rather offensive


innuendo. The urgency arose after the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) had purchased this building.

Mr. More: Will my right hon. Friend accept from a member of the Shropshire Planning Committee that the future of this building had been an urgent critical matter for a long time before any of the transactions mentioned in these Questions took place? Will he also accept that there is widespread gratitude in Shropshire for the help he has given in preserving this artistic and important item of our national heritage?

Sir H. Kerr: While the grant appeared to be a large one, may I ask if the new owner has not taken a large and recurring obligation for the maintenance of a building of outstanding importance?

Lord John Hope: Yes, he has. Had someone not come forward who was prepared to do that, very much more expense might have fallen on the taxpayer.

Mr. Mitchison: Had the Minister no power to buy this property and, if he did, to resell it and keep the profit for the public?

Lord John Hope: If I tried to do that and went for compulsory purchase the obligation on me—and therefore on the taxpayer—to repair the property and keep it going would have cost the taxpayer far more than he will now have to pay.

Mr. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Denis Howell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot receive more than one point of order at once. My impression was that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) rose first.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) is a constituent of mine. He is an alderman of the Borough of Kidderminster. In addition, the postal address of the property we have been discussing is Mawley Hall, Kidderminster, although it is in Shropshire. Would it not be appropriate for the hon. Member for Kidderminster to be called on such an important occasion?

Mr Speaker: That does not involve a point of order. I did allow a question

by the hon. Member in whose constituency the building is situated.

Mr. Howell: I beg to give the customary notice that I shall raise this matter again as soon as possible.

Horse Guards Parade (Car Parking)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Works whether any persons were exempted from the parking fee payable on the Horse Guards Parade during the Christmas period.

Lord John Hope: Those occupants of the surrounding buildings with permits to park on Horse Guards Parade were allowed to park without charge during the Christmas period in the area usually assigned to them, which was roped off from the area available to the general public.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is not this quite wrong? If it is appropriate that the general public should park on this place—which is debatable—should not my right hon. Friend see that in future all those admitted at this time should pay the same fee?

Lord John Hope: The reason—apart from custom, which is not always absolute—why one justifies the public paying on the occasions when this place is open to the public is that all the cars going in and out during the day and filling the whole parade ground causes considerable expense through it having to be put right afterwards. It does damage to the rather soft surface of the Horse Guards Parade. That, I think, justifies the charge.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: In view of the fact that one man is kept permanently at this place now—which was not necessary before—to look after the 100 or so cars which are kept there, is not my right hon. Friend putting forward a case for charging them on every other day of the year?

Lord John Hope: I do not think so.

Nottingham Cottage

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Works what was the cost of repairing and renovating Nottingham Cottage.

Lord John Hope: The cost was £4,130, of which £3,110 was met from


the New Works Subhead of the Royal Palaces Vote, £370 from funds at the disposal of the Sovereign, and £650 by the occupant.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what useful national service this occupant performs that he should have access to this kind of national assistance? Can the Minister tell us whether any rent is paid to the Ministry to recoup it for the cost of redecoration? Is it true that the occupants were allowed by the Ministry even to choose the colour of the decorations although, according to their admission as reported in the Sunday Express, they did not pay for the decorations?

Lord John Hope: I am not responsible for the services rendered by occupants of these grace and favour houses nor for answering for them. During occupation a resident of these houses is responsible for interior decoration and rates, water, lighting and heating charges.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister say whether a rent is paid?

Lord John Hope: No.

Mr. Hamilton: Can he say why not? Why should people like this be a burden on the taxpayer? The taxpayer is sufficiently burdened without this. These people, like everyone else in London, should have to pay their own way.

Lord John Hope: Grace and favour buildings are not my property.

Ancient Monuments

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Works if, in the interests of economy and personal management, he will establish closer liaison with local authorities insofar as the maintenance of ancient monuments is concerned.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Richard Thompson): My right hon. Friend is always ready to advise local authorities on the treatment of ancient monuments in their charge and to seek their cooperation where appropriate in connection with ancient monuments in his own care. He is also anxious to encourage local authorities to exercise their own powers under the Ancient Monuments Acts.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some parts of Scotland equipment and staff are moved miles in order to maintain these monuments while local authorities are maintaining similar monuments in the same areas? Would not what I have suggested lead to much more co-operation than exists, and greater economy, and, perhaps, to the democratisation of the Ministry of Works?

Mr. Thompson: No, Sir. The present degree of co-operation is extremely good. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman gives me an example of what he has in mind, I will be glad to look into it. But there are many cases in which the local authority concerned already bears part of the work necessary in maintaining a monument or its surroundings. I am sure that that is as it should be.

Historic Buildings (Grants)

Mr. More: asked the Minister of Works what is the total amount of money advanced as grants under the Historic Buildings Act, 1953, to date; and how much of this has been spent on industrial monuments.

Mr. R. Thompson: Up to the end of February, 1962, repair grants totalling just over £3,700,000, have been offered under this Act. This figure includes £4,700 for grants towards the repair of four windmills. Grants for industrial buildings which are no longer usable are not made under this Act.

Mr. More: Would my hon. Friend agree that the preservation of our industrial monuments need not call for the expenditure of large sums of public money? Also, would he agree that it is urgent to prevent the destruction of these monuments which are of two classes—first, buildings and structures, and secondly, machinery and plant?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir. However, as my hon. Friend probably knows, the Minister is still awaiting the completion of a pilot survey of industrial monuments in Staffordshire, undertaken by the county council in collaboration with the Council for British Archaeology. Until he has that information it is difficult to formulate a policy.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is it not time that the Government had another look at this Act and re-examined the principle of giving huge subsidies to wealthy property owners?

Mr. Thompson: No, I do not accept that at all. When my right hon. Friend makes a grant it is on the advice of the appropriate Historic Buildings Council. The work which those councils have done has won universal praise.

Building Materials

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Works if he is satisfied that the present deliveries of building materials by manufacturers are adequate to meet the building programme which the Government have in view for the remainder of this year; and if he will make a statement.

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. I expect the general level of building activity to be rather higher this year than it was in 1961. The producers of building materials have assured me that they will be able to meet the higher demand, and I have no reason to think that shortages of materials will hold up the building industry.

Sir T. Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for his informative reply. Will he try to ensure that the demand for building materials generally remains steady and continuous instead of fluctuating periodically, which has happened in the last few years, so that manufacturers may be given the opportunity to plan ahead with confidence?

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir; that is certainly the Government's policy.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware of the number of unemployed building trade operatives in Scotland? Is the reason for plenty of materials being available in Scotland the cut-back in municipal housing which is due this year?

Lord John Hope: No, I do not think so. It applies to the whole country.

Members' Lobby (Statues)

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Works what are his intentions concerning the vacant plinths in the Members' Lobby.

Lord John Hope: A statue of Lord Balfour will shortly be placed on the plinth at present occupied by Sir William Harcourt, and a statue of Earl Lloyd George now under commission will eventually be placed on the vacant plinth on the left-hand side of the Churchill Arch. No other decisions have been taken.

Mr. Mellish: Would it not be a good idea to reserve one of these plinths for the late Sir Waldron Smithers, since he was the only Conservative who could hold Orpington?

Lord John Hope: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to table that Question after the General Election.

Mr. Kershaw: Was it not Sir William Harcourt who said, "We are all Socialists now"? Therefore, would it not be a good idea to put him in the basement?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we are getting rather far from the plinth.

10 Downing Street (Reconstruction Works)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Works when he now expects the reconstruction of 10 Downing Street to be completed; and to what extent its cost will exceed the original estimate.

Lord John Hope: The contract period for this work has now been extended from August, 1962, to February, 1963. The current estimate for Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street is £600,000. This is an increase of £100,000 over the original estimate, owing to unforeseen structural defects and to additional labour costs.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Minister say why the Answer to this Question, which appeared on the Order Paper last Thursday, was released to a special Press conference on Sunday? Apart from this affront to the dignities and established conventions of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman admit that this is one more example of Government bungling, waste, extravagance and all-round incompetence?

Lord John Hope: The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is "No, Sir". The answer to the


first part is that the Press conference was arranged long before the hon. Gentleman tabled his Question.

Sir C. Osborne: Is this work being done on a cost-plus basis?

Lord John Hope: Yes, it is.

Mr. Mitchison: By adding the extra £250,000 which is now being incurred on the Treasury buildings part of the same job, we get an overall increase of 28 per cent. First, does not the Minister know that all that is being found now was disclosed by the Report of his own Committee, which appears as an appendix to the Crawford Committee's Report? There is nothing new in this. Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the labour disputes were taken to the London Regional Joint Disputes Commission, which referred to the extent to which the client, by which it meant the Minister, was responsible for the basic difficulties on this contract? What has the right hon. Gentleman done about this other than make an offer which was not to be negotiated at all and which did not appeal to those concerned?

Lord John Hope: In answer to the last part of the supplementary question, there is a statement by the contractors in The Times this morning which explains the situation perfectly well. I do not think that it is for me to interfere in the matter between the two sides now. In answer to the first part, it is untrue that nothing new has been found since the Crawford Committee reported. In fact, a great deal has been discovered after stripping. In other words, whole walls—by that I mean the brickwork—have had to be taken down and renewed. No one could tell that they were in that condition until they were seen.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not true that the trouble has been dry rot in the fabric of 10 Downing Street? Even if this is true, is not £1-million odd an astonishing sum? Could not the whole façade of the old Treasury building and Downing Street have been rebuilt for this sum, or, in fact, could not the whole block of buildings have been rebuilt from scratch for this sum?

Lord John Hope: No, Sir, I do not think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Ultra High Frequency Wave Bands

Mr Holland: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what plans he has for the utilisation of ultra high frequency television wave bands; and
(2) if he will allocate a television channel for educational broadcasts only.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): As my hon. Friend will realise, these are two of the major issues on which the Pilkington Committee on Broadcasting will presently report. I think we must wait and see what it recommends.

Mr. Holland: In view of the multiplicity of channels which have become available with the development of ultrahigh frequency wave bands, in considering the Pilkington Committee's Report will my right hon. Friend carefully consider the possibility of making available two channels for the duplication of existing programmes by using the 625-line system and another channel for experimental purposes?
As a supplementary question to Question No. 16, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in addition to the tremendous potential of television as a visual aid in the schools, the 1,200,000 adults who turn out in the evenings to attend classes form the nucleus of a large audience for evening adult education programmes?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. All those possibilities have been put to the Pilkington Committee and presently they will all be considered by the Government, although I cannot say yet what will be the result.

North Cornwall

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Postmaster-General when he will authorise the British Broadcasting Corporation to provide a further sub-station in order to improve their television transmissions to North Cornwall, particularly the Bude area.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. now tells me that it is hoping to make certain changes in transmission techniques which will lessen the interference now occurring


between its transmitters at Holme Moss and North Hessary Tor, which use the same channel, and which affects reception in Bude and other places in North Cornwall. When this has been done the Corporation will be better able to judge whether a satellite station is needed in North Cornwall.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the B.B.C. has said that it does not hold out much hope of improving the situation as things stand at the moment? Will my right hon. Friend be sympathetic towards any appeal from the B.B.C. for additional funds to put up new satellites in this part of the country?

Mr. Bevins: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that the important thing is to see how these new techniques operate and whether they improve matters in North Cornwall. If they do not work well we can consider a satellite.

Programmes

Mr. Jeger: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the decline in standards in television programmes owing to the heavy reliance on old films; and whether he will take powers to control the content of television programmes.

Mr. Bevins: I am aware that more feature films than usual are being shown at present on I.T.A. programmes, but responsibility for programme content is a matter which successive Governments have felt it right to leave to the broadcasting authorities.

Mr. Jeger: While that may be all very well in normal times, does not the Postmaster-General realise that the advertisements are much more interesting than the old films? Will he take steps to prevent the advertisements being further interfered with in what are called natural breaks?

Mr. Bevins: I think that that is a view that many hon. Members on both sides of the House take.

Mr. Mason: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take powers to control the content of programmes, does not he think that this is a matter which

should be referred to the Television Advisory Committee?

Mr. Bevins: I am not sure which committee the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Mason: The sub-committee which deals with advertisements.

Mr. Bevins: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that any such committee exists.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give a direction to the Independent Television Authority, under Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, to refrain from broadcasting programmes which include contributions by prominent people on controversial topics, unless such people have given their specific consent to the actual broadcasting of their contribution.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Has the Postmaster-General taken note of the protest of a number of distinguished people who were asked to contribute to the Associated Television's programme "The Four Freedoms" and found that subsequent to their contributions the script was altered to enable their contributions to be criticised by another person? Is not there a danger of abuse here? What safeguard has the individual who is making a contribution to a programme against an abuse to which he cannot reply being introduced?

Mr. Bevins: I have made inquiries about this case, and I am told that in line with the normal practice the revised script was sent to all those who had participated in the programme before the letter appeared in The Times, and their decision to withdraw from the programme was honoured by A.T.V. without question. In fact the letter to The Times was dated 15th February and appeared on the 16th, but the revised scripts had been sent to those concerned on 14th February.

Mr. Swingler: Is it clear that the consent of the contributor has to be obtained before his broadcast contribution can be used?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, certainly.

Tobacco Advertising

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Postmaster-General when a decision will be reached on the proposal to restrict tobacco advertising on commercial television.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General what decision he has now made about the need to restrict tobacco advertising on television.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Postmaster-General whether, under Section 4 (4) of the Television Act, 1954, he will now request the Independent Television Authority to consult him with a view to making new regulations banning cigarette advertising.

Mr. Bevins: This question is now under consideration by the Government, but no decision has yet been reached. Meanwhile, the I.T.A. is also studying the implications of the Report of the Royal College of Physicians and will be consulting with me as soon as possible.

Mr. Allaun: But is not this inquiry, sponsored by the I.T.A. through its Advertising Advisory Committee—which is itself dominated by the advertising firms—bound to be biassed and, therefore, completely unsatisfactory? Does not the responsibility lie clearly with the Government?

Mr. Bevins: I do not quarrel with that view. I had hoped that in the first part of my Answer I had made it clear that the primary responsibility here is the Government's.

Mr. Dempsey: As answers to questions have indicated that there is a serious growth in the number of deaths from lung cancer among females of advanced age, does the right hon. Gentleman think that we can afford to wait for a report? Does not he realise that medical opinion associates smoking with lung cancer? Is it not time he acted determinedly by taking the strain himself instead of leaving it to Capstan?

Mr. Bevins: I realise what was said in the report. This raises very large issues both for the Government and for the public. Any decision to prohibit tobacco advertising on commercial television would raise much wider questions of advertising generally, not only for tobacco but for other substances as well.

Mr. Edelman: Has not the I.T.A. an obligation, under Section 4 of the Television Act, 1954, to consult the Government on the methods employed in advertising? Is it not the case that the I.T.A. has abandoned subliminal advertising? In view of the fact that advertisers of tobacco now seek to entice the young by subtle mixtures of sex and snobbery, is it not time for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene and to take action?

Mr. Bevins: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is "Yes". The romantic advertisements are being considered both by the Government and by the I.T.A.

Captain Orr: Is there not also danger of coronary thrombosis by over-eating? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in considering the wider question, the need to keep the matter in perspective?

Mr. Mayhew: In his original Answer, the right hon. Gentleman said that the I.T.A. was making an inquiry into this question, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) pointed out that this could not possibly be an independent or objective inquiry, he agreed with that view. Is he aware that the I.T.A. has officially said that its relationship with the programme contractors is one of partnership? Would it not be much better if this inquiry were made not by a partner of these companies but by a totally independent body?

Mr. Bevins: As I have indicated, whatever may be the final view of the I.T.A., the Government themselves will take an independent view and will be guided solely by considerations of the public interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire and Peeblesshire

Commander Donaldson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will state to the nearest convenient date the number of telephone subscribers in Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire and Peeblesshire; and how many applicants are awaking the installation of telephones in each of the three counties.

Mr. Bevins: The number of subscribers on 28th February was 6,771. The number of applications
under inquiry or in course of being met were 27 in Roxburghshire, 9 in Selkirkshire and 10 in Peeblesshire. No applications were held up by shortage of plant. In the past 12 months 396 telephones were installed.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Postal Services, Peebles

Commander Donaldson: asked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied that the letter and parcel services in Peebles are fully efficient and up to normal Post Office standards in regard to deliveries and security, following the recent closure of British Railways services throughout the country; and if he will make a statement.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): Yes. Apart from minor changes, letter and parcel services have been maintained virtually unchanged, and normal security arrangements have been made for the mails. If there is any particular point which my hon. and gallant Friend would like us to consider, my right hon. Friend will gladly do so if he will let him have details.

Mr. W. R. Williams: In view of the declared policy of the Chairman of the British Transport Commission that many of these local branch railway lines are to be closed, can the hon. Lady say whether the overall effect on postal facilities is under special consideration to meet the changed circumstances?

Miss Pike: We have had a committee which has reported on the handling of mail between post offices and stations, and we are keeping the whole situation under close review the whole time.

Postal Facilities, Blyth

Mr. Milne: asked the Postmaster-General what prospects there are of a new post office being established in Blyth; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Pike: My right hon. Friend would not be justified in opening another post office in Blyth at present; but, as I have promised the hon. Member, we will review the matter if there are further major developments in the area.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Lady aware that her reply will cause a great deal of dismay not only to the townspeople but to the head postmaster and his staff who are operating under extreme difficulties? Will the hon. Lady undertake to look into this matter more closely with a view to reversing her decision?

Miss Pike: We are keeping this under review, but it might be a good idea to look at it on the spot and make certain that we have the best arrangement possible.

Mr. Milne: I gladly undertake to invite the hon. Lady to visit my constituency at the earliest possible moment.

Savings Certificate Division

Mr. de Ferranti: asked the Postmaster-General if he will publish the figures of labour availability on which his decision as to the proposed location of the Savings Certificate Division will be based.

Miss Pike: My right hon. Friend's decision about the future location of the Savings Certificate Division will not be based solely on labour availability, but he will give my hon. Friend information on this aspect when the decision is announced.

Mr. de Ferranti: May I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the population of Morecambe and Lancaster is no less than 90,000, and expert opinion agrees that there is sufficient labour available for all the needs of the Savings Certificate Division to be met? Further, will she scotch any rumours that Durham might have been chosen for the location of the Savings Certificate Division? This must obviously be nonsense, as the population of Durham is only 20,000.

Miss Pike: I assure my hon. Friend that we will keep all his arguments in mind, and I also assure him that a decision has not yet been made.

Banking Services

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Postmaster-General what rates of commission for banking services performed for the Post Office were agreed with the clearing banks on 1st October. 1960.

Miss Pike: It would be contrary to established practice to disclose the terms


of commercial contracts or agreements for particular supplies or services. My right hon. Friend can, however, inform my hon. Friend that the Post Office Accounts for 1961–62 will show a total payment of about £700,000 by way of bank charges.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is my hon. Friend aware that my information is that in fact the rates agreed are 6d. per item collected and paid, 1s. per cent. on cash paid in and out and out-of-pocket expenses, and even allowing for the 2½ per cent. per annum on the average cleared balances allowed to the Post Office, at a time when she and her right hon. Friend are increasingly making the Post Office competitive is not this a fee that she should look at closely?

Miss Pike: I cannot comment on the figures given by my hon. Friend, but I assure him that we looked at this very carefully and we believe that we have a good bargain.

Automatic Telephone and Electric Company, Liverpool

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Postmaster-General (1) on what date he approved the transfer of a contract given by his department to the Automatic Telephone and Electric Comany, Liverpool, to Plessey's, Ilford, Essex, resulting in redundancy of almost 180 workers;
(2) what representations he has received on the subject of redundancy amongst telephone workers in the Liverpool area; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Bevins: The redundancy mentioned by the hon. Member has not been caused by a transfer of work from the Automatic Telephone and Electric Company to the Plessey Company. My Department gave approval to the A.T.E. on 1st March for the sub-letting of a contract to Plesseys, but the work covered by that contract would not in any event have been carried out at Liverpool. I understand that the present redundancy at Liverpool is the result of action initiated by A.T.E. and accelerated since the merger with Plesseys. This action is designed to reduce overhead costs and to secure greater efficiency. I have been approached on this matter by the right

hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and by three of my constituents, and I am replying to them in the sense of this Answer.

Mrs. Braddock: Is not the Postmaster-General aware that those who have been dismissed are of the opinion that the contract given to the Automatic Telephone and Electric Company was a contract that would keep them employed for quite a while? In view of the possibility of further redundancy because of the merger that has taken place, what action does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take about further contracts with the Automatic Telephone and Electric Company?

Mr. Bevins: The position is that it is simply not true that the sub-letting agreed to by the Post Office has resulted in any redundancy whatever at the works in Liverpool. The redundancy is due to the desire of the firm to cut out excessive overheads. I have my eye on the possibility of future redundancies in an area such as Liverpool or Merseyside, and I give my assurance that I shall do all in my power to prevent work from leaving Liverpool.

Mr. Tilney: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether adequate compensation is being paid to the staff?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, indeed. I have made the most careful inquiries with regard to compensation, and I shall be very happy to give my hon. Friend detailed particulars.

Deliveries, Leicestershire (Parliamentary Papers)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Parliamentary papers posted early on Friday are not delivered in Leicestershire until late on Monday morning; and, in view of the fact that postal deliveries were quicker than this 100 years ago, what steps he is taking to improve and quicken postal deliveries generally.

Miss Pike: Parliamentary papers posted in London early on Friday should be delivered in Leicestershire next day. If my hon. Friend would let me have the covers of any papers delayed in delivery, my right hon. Friend would be glad to look into the matter.

Sir C. Osborne: I will certainly give the cover to my hon. Friend. Since I am one of her constituents and had still not received the folder I signed on Thursday afternoon for Parliamentary papers when I left home at 9 o'clock on Monday morning, is she satisfied that this is the best sort of service we can expect?

Miss Pike: I appreciate the inconvenience caused to my hon. Friend in this matter. As he says, Rothley is a very important part of my constituency, but this is the first complaint I have had about the postal service there.

Mr. Nabarro: You should come in on Fridays, Cyril.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (GENERAL ELECTION)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister why, in view of the delay which will now occur in the review of the Federal Constitution, and the ensuing unrest, he did not advise Her Majesty to instruct the Governor-General of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland not to dissolve the Federal Assembly.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The Governor-General is empowered under the Federal Constitution to dissolve the Federal Assembly acting in his own discretion, and in exercising this discretion he is required by the Royal Instructions to act in accordance with the constitutional conventions which apply to the exercise by Her Majesty of similar powers in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not the case that, according to the constitutional position, the right hon. Gentleman can advise Her Majesty to advise the Governor-General not to dissolve the Federal Assembly? Is it not unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman did not take that action? Is it not the case that nobody wants this election but Sir Roy Welensky, that it is opposed by all political leaders, including Sir Edward Whitehead, that it will be a farce and that it is bound to lead to an increase in tension in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, who want no part of the Welensky Federation?

The Prime Minister: The facts are as I have stated. Under Royal Instructions,

the Governor-General uses his discretion in a way similar to that followed in the United Kingdom. For me to have suggested any change might have been, under a purely legalistic interpretation, a possibility—although the time for it had passed—but I think it would have been a very unwise thing to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRANIAN PRIME MINISTER (VISIT)

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Prime Minister what representations were made to him by the Iranian Prime Minister, when in London, relating to the defence of Iran; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the joint communiqué issued at the end of Dr. Amini's visit to this country.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Iran is a vital part of the Western Alliance, and that we have a great moral responsibility for maintaining her integrity? Has he considered associating C.E.N.T.O. with N.A.T.O. for the joint defence of this territory, possibly with a joint committee of chiefs of staff?

The Prime Minister: The second part of that supplementary question raised a very wide subject. As for the first part, I gladly take this opportunity of expressing again what we expressed during the Iranian Prime Minister's visit—our deep interest in and sympathy for the work that Iran is doing and our determination to help in every possible way. I am happy to feel that, perhaps as a symbol of that, the C.E.N.T.O. Ministerial meeting will be held in London at the end of next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN MINISTERS (GENEVA MEETINGS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the recent meetings of the three Foreign Ministers in Geneva, which took place with a view to concerting disarmament plans as proposed in his letter to Mr. Khrushchev dated 13th February.

The Prime Minister: My noble Friend the Foreign Secretary who returned to


London at the weekend has now gone back to Geneva and will continue his talks with Mr. Rusk and Mr. Gromyko, as well as leading the British Delegation at the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Conference. I do not think therefore that it would be appropriate for me to make any formal statement now. As the House is aware, the Foreign Ministers, who had their first meeting on the evening of 11th March, have discussed, besides disarmament and nuclear tests, the continuing difficulties over Berlin, including the apparently deliberate attempts being made to interfere with civilian traffic in the Berlin air corridors.
On nuclear tests, in spite of the concessions offered by the Western side, there has so far been no sign of any Soviet willingness to consider arrangements other than those put forward on 28th November, 1961, in which there was no provision whatever for the international detection, identification or verification of nuclear tests. We shall continue our search for the minimum of safeguards against
violation which would permit the general cessation of nuclear tests; but some kind of impartial international agreement is essential. If there is no such system it will be impossible to ascertain whether some unexplained seismic disturbance is in fact an infringement of the Treaty.
On disarmament, the three Foreign Ministers discussed the verification of obligations assumed, which is perhaps the point at which their views are most widely separated. However, on the positive side, agreement was reached on a business-like procedure for the conduct of the Conference and these arrangements have now been accepted by the other Governments concerned.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the failure of the three Foreign Ministers to make any progress on the problem of tests, is it not becoming evident that a test ban treaty will have to be negotiated with Mr. Khrushchev at the conference table? Would not the Prime Minister consider making a firm proposal that a summit conference be held on this problem early in April?

The Prime Minister: That is a point which, of course, must be token into consideration. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows, there has been some slight move this

morning, and I understand that my noble Friend has once again indicated in his speech today a desire for a flexible attitude and that we are ready to accept adequate minima of international verification. Once that principle has been accepted, I do not think that it should be impossible to negotiate a treaty. Without that principle, I do not see much hope of progress.

Sir G. Nicholson: Has my right hon. Friend any progress report to make about the protests which have, no doubt, been made about the buzzing of aircraft in the Berlin air corridor? Is it not almost inevitable that an accident will take place sooner or later, with disastrous consequences to any negotiations that may be taking place?

The Prime Minister: My noble Friend and Mr. Rusk made the position clear to Mr. Gromyko, and I am happy to say that the position has somewhat improved.

Mr. Gaitskell: While welcoming the fact that the Russians have agreed to have separate talks with United States and British representatives on tests, independently of the other negotiations, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Foreign Secretary discussed with Mr. Gromyko the possibility of a summit conference in the course of those talks?

The Prime Minister: They discussed a very wide range of subjects.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware of the reports in today's papers by Reuter's correspondent in Japan that there has been increased Strontium 90 in Japan, and that the Japanese Government are gravely concerned about food contamination which might result from further poisoning of the atmosphere, and will he give due consideration to this, in view of his objection to the Russian tests?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen the report, but if the hon. Gentleman puts down a question I will answer it.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In view of the very great importance of these discussions, will the Prime Minister consider whether he could make available to the House copies of the full texts of the proposals made by the various delegates to the meeting?

The Prime Minister: I will consider that, but the right hon. Gentleman has long experience of negotiations, and I would be sorry to take a step which might tend to harden positions, while there is still some hope that they might become more easily handled. To set out in a White Paper everybody's position might not be very helpful to what we are trying to achieve.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech delivered on 14th March by the Minister without Portfolio on the future of the steel industry represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: My noble Friend the Minister without Portfolio did not make a speech on 14th March.

Mr. Foot: Did the Prime Minister's officials draw his attention to the reports in many newspapers, from The Times downwards, or upwards, saying that there had been a speech made by the Minister without Portfolio on the future of the steel industry to a secret or semi-secret meeting of Conservative Members of Parliament? Does not the Prime Minister think it most unfortunate and unfair that a news statement of great importance on the future of a great steel works like Richard Thomas and Baldwins should be made at such a meeting instead of publicly in this House?

The Prime Minister: If there is any question of public policy, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Power, but, if the hon. Gentleman can put his mind back to the days when he was a member of a party, he will realise that this was a form of meeting which is not unusual in the House of Commons and is, indeed, part of our Parliamentary life.

An Hon. Member: Artful dodger.

Mr. Foot: If I heard him aright, did not the Prime Minister say in his first reply that the Minister without Portfolio did not make a speech on this date,

and has he not just now shown that he lied to the House in that first reply?

The Prime Minister: If it were any other hon. Member except the hon. Gentleman, I would not answer any question after words which I resented, but I do not think it is necessary to take that view with him. As I said in my first reply, the Minister attended a meeting. We all know that many of these meetings take place on both sides of the House, and if the hon. Gentleman would recall it he has no doubt attended such meetings addressed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power. [Interruption.] He did not make a speech of any kind. He attended a meeting, where, no doubt, statements were made. There was no public speech of any sort or kind.

Sir Richard Pilkington: On a point of order. The word "lie" was used by an hon. Member opposite. Should he not be required to withdraw it?

Mr. Speaker: If the point is raised. I am bound to rule on it and ask him to withdraw it. I do 90.

Mr. Foot: I am in great difficulty, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister in his first reply said to the House of Commons that the Minister had not made a speech on this subject. He subsequently confirmed to this House that he had made a speech—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is quite disorderly. My duty requires me to require the hon. Member to withdraw. I have done so. I am afraid that it is a question of withdrawing and not of arguing about it.

Mr. Foot: My duty also requires me to withdraw. I am sorry to have to do it, but the House must judge for itself what happened.

The Prime Minister: I am always ready to answer questions about speeches made in public by my colleagues. I think there is one almost every week, but this, as everybody knows, was not one of those questions addressed to a speech of that kind. This was a meeting of an ordinary kind, an ordinary meeting, which no one denies took place, on the ordinary kind of party committee.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nabarro.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One moment, in order to correct my own
mind, in case I have got something wrong. I called the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to ask a supplementary question when a point of order supervened. I am not certain whether the Prime Minister was answering his question, because I did not hear it.

Mr. Nabarro: I have not yet asked my supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Let the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) put his point of order.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has been requested to withdraw what was termed a lie, why is it that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who told a lie a few weeks ago, was not also required to withdraw? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no point of order for me at this stage.

Mr. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: It cannot be further to that point of order because it was not one. If the hon. Member has another point of order to raise I will hear him.

Mr. Rankin: Surely, truth is something that we honour in this House, and when it is dishonoured it becomes a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot be asked to define truth in response to a point of order.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, about the word "lie", would it be in order for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) to say that this was an "unexplainable contradiction?"

Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Member says it I will rule upon it, but his opportunity is not now.

Mr. Nabarro: Returning to the Question, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the Question contains the words "on the future of the steel industry ", and, having regard to the fact that it has been the declared policy and objective of the Conservative Party in four successive General Elections to complete the denationalisation of the steel industry, would not my right hon. Friend again make it clear that it is our policy to complete the denationalisation, particularly in the context of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that arises on this Question. If my hon. Friend will put down a question either to me or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Minister of Power, I shall be very glad to answer it. All I was trying to say was that the meeting, which everybody knows my noble Friend attended, was not a case of his making a speech in public, which I have to defend or deny, but was an ordinary meeting of private Members, such as is held by every party in every Administration.

Mr. Lipton: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that ordinary hon. Members are in a very difficult position, as some of us would like to know what arguments were advanced by the Minister without Portfolio in favour of the continued nationalisation of steel?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member puts down a question on the matter at issue, I will do my best to answer it. This was an entirely different Question to Which my Answer was perfectly correct, as everyone in the House knows.

Mr. M. Foot: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment. As the Prime Minister's honour is now at stake, I hope that he will turn up to reply.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must help me when giving notice of raising a subject on the Adjournment by adhering to the traditional formula.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Jeger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I tabled a Question to the Lord Privy Seal, Question No. 32. Realising only in the morning


that I would be absent at the Pontefract by-election later in the day, and unable to put my Question, I telephoned the Table Office and asked for the Question to be deferred until next week. I was very surprised today to see in HANSARD that my Question had been answered in conjunction with Question No. 33, which means that it was not deferred until next week as I had requested.
Obviously, there was a slip-up between the Table Office and the Office of the Lord Privy Seal. I would be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would inquire into that, to see that such things do not happen again. I would not say that I have a particular grievance in this connection, because I realise that mistakes can happen, but they should not happen too frequently, or again.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger). I have not the matter sufficiently in mind now to remember about the state of my Order Paper, but I will have the requisite inquiries made and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN

Right Honourable Arthur George Bottomley for Middlesbrough, East.

Eric Reginald Lubbock, esquire, for Orpington.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. lain Macleod.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day—

(1) paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply) shall have effect as if a reference to Seven o'clock were substituted for a reference to half-past Nine o'clock, and
(2) proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means shall not be entered upon until after the Proceedings on the Report of Resolutions from the Committee of Ways and Means [19th March] and on the introduction and presentation of any Bill founded upon those Resolutions shall have been concluded.

—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

JURIES

3.35 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to jurors and juries.
I think—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, Let the hon. Lady be heard.

Mrs. Hart: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, the nature of the disturbance which hindered my request for leave to bring in a Bill.
The purpose of the Bill would be to remove the property qualification which was made the basis for jury service in 1825 and which has remained unchanged since then. My Bill would consist of two very simple Clauses which would seek to base the system of selection for jury service upon the register of electors and would, at the same time, permit women who are the mothers of young children to claim exemption from jury service if they so wished.
The Acts of 1825 which related, on the one hand, to England and Wales, and, on the other, to Scotland, laid down the following qualifications for jury service. In England and Wales they were, briefly, that a juror should possess an income of £10 a year from real estate or rent charge, or £20 a year from leasehold of not less than twenty-one years; or, secondly, should be a householder living in premises which were rated no less than £20 a year, or, in Middlesex and the County of London specifically, with a rateable value of not less than £30 a year; or, thirdly, should occupy a house containing no fewer than 15 windows.
Those were the qualifications laid down in the 1825 Act which still relate to the qualifications for jury service in England and Wales today. In Scotland, the basis was broader. It was that a juror had to be seized of an estate of inheritance worth £5 a year, or worth in goods and chattels and personal estate the sum of £200 at least.
There can be neither philosophical nor theoretical justification for retaining this property qualification for selection for jury service. When Parliament established the universal franchise, it finally


disposed of the belief that the possession of property either reflected or bestowed virtue upon the citizen, an idea which was finally ended when we gave the vote to every adult.
Therefore, I do not wish to examine the theoretical basis of the property qualification since it would no longer be upheld by any hon. Member; but I would like briefly to examine the practical effects of the retention of the present property qualification for jury service and of clinging to what I suppose is really an eighteenth century principle embodied in a nineteenth century Act. The effects are very serious for a number of different groups of people.
First, it affects people with residential posts, people who work, for example, in hospitals or training colleges for teachers or children's homes, or, indeed, in any kind of residential school. Such people as these, who live in premises for which they are not themselves rated, cannot be eligible for jury service. Nor can tenants of furnished houses or flats for which the tenants themselves are not separately rated. Nor can the adult sons and daughters of householders who themselves are eligible for jury service. Nor can—this perhaps constitutes the largest group—the wives of householders.
At present, a number of women in England and Wales are eligible for jury service because they are themselves householders or possessors of house property. The number of these is severely limited, because in the main they constitute women who are unmarried and living in their own homes, or widows, or women who, for some reason or other, have houses vested in their names.
With men and women who are joint householders, the practice in the country as a whole varies considerably in relation to whether both of the joint householders are starred for jury service. There are some parts of the country in which, where a man and his wife are joint householders, it is, nevertheless, the custom for only the man to be starred for jury service.
I submit that the result of this bias in selection for jury service can best be summed up as Lord Justice Devlin summed it up a few years ago, when he

said that the consequence was that British juries tended to be predominantly male, middle-aged, middle-class and middle-minded. I submit that this is not the best basis for jury service in this country.
I do not propose to engage in yet another feminist battle of words. The feminist battle was well and truly won in 1919 by the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act. I will remind hon. Members of Section 1, which says:
A person shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function … and a person shall not be exempted by sex or marriage from the liability to serve as a juror.
What has clearly happened throughout the years since 1919 is that the intentions of the 1919 Act have been thwarted in their relation to the public function of jury service by the continuance in existence of the property qualifications set out in the Juries Act, 1825. If hon. Members anywhere in the House have any doubts about the desirability or the wisdom of so enlarging the basis of jury service as to include more women, they should first look at the way in which the jury system is operating in Scotland, where the basis is broader, where there are many women serving, and where good Scottish justice is seen very clearly to be done on every occasion. Secondly, I refer them to their wives, who, I am sure, could argue the case much more vehemently than I can on this occasion.
Moreover, hon. Members who may very sadly be in the position of not having wives who might be affected in this way might care to consider the very hard case of the bachelor sons of householders, who themselves are now deprived of jury service.
Clause 1 of my proposed Bill simply seeks to establish that all those whose names appear on the electoral register shall qualify for jury service, provided only that their names have appeared on the electoral register for the area in which they live for three successive years. This meets one very desirable quality, namely, that there should be a degree of integration into the community on the part of those who serve on juries. Clause 1 would meet this need.
Clause 2 would simply permit a woman who is the mother of a child of or below the age of full-time school attendance to claim exemption from jury service if she wished to do so. This is also reasonable and necessary, because there might very well be considerable hardships on a small group of women who could not easily make the necessary arrangements to serve on a jury.
The jury system as a whole has become a matter of some discussion in the course of the last few months. My Bill, if the House will give me leave to bring it in, would not challenge the basis of our present jury system. It would, indeed, assume that British justice should continue to be founded in part upon the basis of the jury system. Nor would my Bill concern itself with age limits or educational qualifications. These are separate issues. Indeed, they are issues which the House might wish to discuss at some point, but they are not involved in wiping out an anachronism from our present system, which is what my Bill seeks to do.
Whatever views hon. Members have on these questions, which have become to some extent matters of interesting controversy, I hope that they will find it possible to support my Bill. I do not claim for one moment that jury service is a cherished and sought after privilege. Indeed, many regard it as an extremely grave and arduous responsibility. However, democracy must imply not only the assertion of individual rights, but also the willing acceptance of individual duty and responsibility.
I therefore suggest that the Bill, if the House gives me leave to bring it in, would make it possible for this responsibility to be exercised equally without the frustration of the property qualification and would provide a more realistic basis for the democracy and the system of justice which we in this country cherish.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I rise to ask the House not to give the hon. Lady leave to bring in this Bill. I say at once that this is not a political question. The only question
which has to be asked is whether we improve the administration of the law in this country, of which we are so proud. I admit

at once that, although I am asking the House not to give the hon. Lady leave to bring in the Bill, there are a number of matters which may be open to criticism in the jury service system in this country. However, a Private Member's Bill is not the proper means of putting these matters right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members will listen quietly and politely, I will tell them the reasons.
This is not, as I have said, a political question. It is concerned solely with the administration of justice. Nor are Members of Parliament personally concerned in this matter, because like lunatics, peers, keepers of public lunatic asylums, and a host of other people, we are exempt from the duty of jury service. Whether this list is too long—it embraces about thirty-five classes of persons who are exempt from jury service—or whether it should be shortened is certainly a matter about which it is possible to argue. Changes and amendments may be desirable.
I thought that the hon. Lady would probably deal with one important matter today. As she has not, I will bring it to the attention of the House, because whether the list of exemptions is too long or whether perhaps it should be lengthened is a matter which should be inquired into.
The position at present is, as the hon. Lady said—I am going a little further than she did on liability for jury service—that persons between the ages of 21 and 60 to whom the property qualifications to which she referred apply are liable for jury service. I present the hon. Lady with this interesting question. As we live longer nowadays, and keep our wits longer, is it right to say that someone is too old to sit on a jury after he is 60?
In this country changes come gradually. Generally speaking, they are not brought about by legislation. When the property qualification was first introduced it meant that juries consisted only of occupiers of large houses or properties—what one might call people of property. Because of the change in the rateable value of property, nowadays the vast majority of householders throughout the country qualify. I would remind the House that they certainly have the right to vote at elections; the right to take part in the Government of the country


by voting a Government in or out. But jury service is something quite different. It is a duty imposed upon people, with exceptions—I have mentioned one or two—and it is often a very onerous duty.
Nowadays there are very few juries in civil actions. That, again, is a matter that might be inquired into, because, in my opinion, they are too few. Jury service nearly always implies service in criminal cases and very often that service is long and tedious because of the considerable length of the case, or because the jurors, have concluded one case, then have to try another case or cases.
To refer to the matters which the hon. Lady raised, there is the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, but the matter does not rest entirely there. If the hon. Lady's researches had taken her a little further she would have found that in the year after the passing of that Act the Women Jurors (Criminal Causes) Rules, 1920, were passed to deal with and regulate the position of women on juries. It was perhaps wise that the House, or the Minister at the time who made those rules, said that husband and wife should not serve on the same jury.
That was probably a very wise precaution. It did, however, lay down that the sexes were to be put upon the panel for jury service in the same ratio as they existed on the jury list. As we know, once the jurors are empanelled they are called for service in the jury box purely by ballot—the luck of the draw takes them, or does not take them, as the case may be.
The practical result is that in criminal cases generally we find two or three women upon a jury. I have seen as many as five. Never let it be thought that I am criticising that for a moment. I think that it is an improvement. It has been brought about not by any legislation that the House has passed but by evolution of time, by changes in rateable values, and by the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act. We have had these changes and we have improved our system altogether.
The effect of the hon. Lady's Bill would be to include a number of matters. Undoubtedly, by the property qualifications being removed, it might be said—I do not know what the answer is—that

perhaps the standard of education and intelligence of juries might go down. I can assure the House that some of the
cases which juries have to try are very difficult. Some are fraud cases involving figures, and the alteration or falsification of figures extending over years are often by no means a simple matter to understand. As there are more women than men on the electoral roll it is likely that the majority of juries would consist more of women than of men.
Some people might think that a good thing; others might think it bad. One reason which, I think, militates against them—and I say this with no disrespect to any hon. Lady in the House—is that women are undoubtedly rather more emotional than men. Having defended many women accused, I know that they are much harder on women accused than are men jurors. Very often I have known defending counsel object, as they are entitled to do, to women jurors, because they are defending a woman and they do not like other women upon the jury. They think that they have not such a good chance as they would have with an all-male jury. That is the kind of question that might well be gone into a little more fully.
The question of juries was before the House in 1949 when a previous Government brought in a lengthy Juries Act. It provided, among other things, for the payment of jurors and also for the abolition of special juries, which was not, in my view, a very wise thing to have done. It went into such details as those in Section 14:
The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to, or in relation to, service on a jury summoned—

(a) for the purposes of an inquest held by the coroner of His Majesty's household;
(b) for the purposes of a trial of the pyx under section twelve of the Coinage Act, 1870;
(c) for attendance at the Great or Small Barmote Court for the Hundred of High Peak or the Soke and Wapentake of Wirks-worth or a great or small barmote court for any of the manors or liberties mentioned in sections twelve to fifteen of the Derbyshire Mining Customs and Mineral Courts Act, 1852; or
(d) for attendance at a hundred court which is not a court of record or at a court baron, court leet, law day, view of frankpledge or other like court."
If any hon. Member asks me when one of those courts last sat, I cannot answer.


The point is that at that time the whole position of jurors was carefully gone into by the Government and no change was made then in the methods of selection, or in the qualifications for a juror. Therefore, if the Government of the day did not choose to do it when they were going very fully into this matter—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who was the Attorney-General?

Mr. Doughty: Sir Hartley Shawcross, now Lord Shawcross.
The Government went very fully into the matter at the time and decided to make no change. Certainly, the few years that have elapsed since do not make it advisable, on a Private Members' Bill of this kind, to suggest that a sweeping change in the law should be made. If the hon. Lady is lucky in the Ballot and tables a Motion, I promise her two things. I shall give her
every assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps the hon. Lady will be more

thankful for it than some of her hon. Friends. They do not seem to be assisting her. I am offering to give her all the assistance I can on the points that I have raised, which, no doubt, could be considered more fully in suggesting improvements in the system that now prevails. The system is a very good one. Before the law is changed it must be looked at very carefully. I must, however, tell the House that, in my view, this is not the way to tackle this problem, and for the reasons I have given I suggest that the House does not give the hon. Lady leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 178.

Division No. 130.]
AYES
[3.58 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Gourlay, Harry
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Awbery, Stan
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Gunter, Ray
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Manuel, Archie C.


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mapp, Charles


Bennett, J, (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William
Mason, Roy


Blyton, William
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bottomley, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Mendelson, J. J.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)
Healey, Denis
Millan, Bruce


Boyden, James
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Milne, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mitchison, G. R.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Moody, A. S.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D,
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Moyle, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hilton, A. V.
Mulley, Frederick


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Holman, Percy
Nabarro, Gerald


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Holt, Arthur
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Oliver, G. H.


Cliffe, Michael
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Oram, A. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Will


Cronin, John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Curran, Charles
Hunter, A. E.
Peart, Frederick


Darling, George
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Deer, George
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, Ernest


Dempsey, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Diamond, John
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dodds, Norman
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Randall, Harry


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rankin, John


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Redhead, E. C.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reid, William


Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, H.


Eden, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George
Ross, William


Finch, Harold
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Fitch, Alan
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fletcher, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Loveys, Walter H.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Lubbock, E.
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gammans, Lady
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, Julian


Ginsburg, David
Mclnnes, James
Spriggs, Leslie




Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Willey, Frederick


Stonehouse, John
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, w. R. (Openshaw)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Thorpe, Jeremy
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C)
Turner, Colin
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Swain, Thomas
Wade, Donald
Winterbottom, R. E.


Swingler, Stephen
Warbey, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Symonds, J. B.
Ward, Dame Irene
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Weitzman, David



Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Whitlock, William
Mr. Monslow and Mr. Allaun


Thomas, George (Cardiff, w.)
Wilkins, W. A.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, Alan
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Allason, James
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Balniel, Lord
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R, G.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Barlow, Sir John
Gurden, Harold
Peel, John


Barter, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Peyton, John


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pott, Percivall


Berkeley, Humphry
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bitten, John
Hendry, Forbes
Prior, J. M. L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Ramsden, James


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hiley, Joseph
Rawlinson, Peter


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Roots, William


Braine, Bernard
Hobson, Sir John
Russell, Ronald


Brewis, John
Hocking, Philip N.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Holland, Philip
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hollingworth, John
Seymour, Leslie


Brooman-White, R.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Sharples, Richard


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hopkins, Alan
Shaw, M.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Shepherd, William


Bryan, Paul
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Buck, Antony
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chlswick)


Bullard, Denys
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Bullus, Wing Commander Erlc
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Burden, F. A.
Jackson, John
Stevens, Geoffrey


Butcher, Sir Herbert
James, David
Stodart, J. A.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kershaw, Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Chataway, Christopher
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Temple, John M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Leburn, Gilmour
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Cleaver, Leonard
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Cole, Norman
Lilley, F. J. P.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Collard, Richard
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Cooke, Robert
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Costain, A. P.
Longbottom, Charles
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)


Coulson, Michael
MacArthur, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
McLaren, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vane, W. M. F.


Cunningham, Knox
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maddan, Martin
Walder, David


Duncan, Sir James
Maginnis, John E.
Walker, Peter


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wall, Patrick


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marlowe, Anthony
Webster, David


Errington, Sir Eric
Marshall, Douglas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, William


Farr, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton
Wise, A. R.


Gilmour, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Woodhouse, C. M.


Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhew, Victor
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Noble, Michael
Mr. Doughty and Mr. Ridsdale.


Third Resolution read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — REPORT [19TH MARCH]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1961–62; CIVIL ESTIMATES TOGETHER WITH ESTIMATE FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 1962–63 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT); NAVY ESTIMATES, 1962–63; AIR ESTIMATES, 1962–63; AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62; CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESSES), 1960–61

Resolutions reported,

SCHEDULE


—
Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote
£

£



1. Pay, &c., of the Air Force
Cr. 840,000
100,000


2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services
Cr. 70,000
—


3. Air Ministry
400,000
—


4. Civilians at Outstations and the Meteorological Office
2,750,000
100,000


5. Movements
700,000
—


6. Supplies
50,000
250,000


7. Aircraft and Stores
17,200,000
*−1,800,000


8. Works and Lands
750,000
*−2,700,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
700,000
*− 800,000


10. Non-effective Services
610,000
—


11. Additional Married Quarters
—
*− 400,000


Total, Air (Supplementary), 1961–62
£22,250,000
*−5,250,000


* Deficit.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES. 1961–62

CLASS VIII VOTE 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SERVICES

1. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,259,473, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with agricultural and food services; including land drainage and rehabilitation of land damaged by flood and tempest; purchase, development and management of land, including land settlement and provision of smallholdings; services in connection with livestock, and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and supplementary labour schemes; control of pests; education, research and advisory services; marketing; agricultural credits; horticulture; certain trading services; subscriptions to international organisations; and sundry other services including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

CLASS VII VOTE 9. STATIONERY AND PRINTING

2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,416,010, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for stationery, printing, paper, binding, and printed books for the public service; for the salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry miscellaneous services, including reports of parliamentary debates.

CLASS III VOTE 6. CARLISLE STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray

the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for the salaries and expenses of the Carlisle State Management District, including the cost of provision and management of licensed premises.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS

VOTE 2. INLAND REVENUE

4. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £792,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for the salaries and expenses of the Inland Revenue Department.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1962–63

(VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

5. That a sum, not exceeding £1,445,371,503, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, viz:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES

CLASS I





£



1.
House of Lords
89,000


2.
House of Commons
550,000


3.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
1,500,000


4.
Privy Council Office
16,000


5.
Post Office Ministers
2,500


6.
Customs and Excise
6,900,000


7.
Inland Revenue
20,000,000


8.
Exchequer and Audit Department
260,000


9.
Civil Service Commission
225,000


10.
Royal Commissions, etc.
170,000

£



7.
Prisons, England and Wales
7,000,000


8.
Prisons, Scotland
655,000


9.
Child Care, England and Wales
1,491,000


10.
Child Care, Scotland
187,000


11.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
500


12.
County Courts
164,000


13.
Legal Aid Fund
1,000,000


14.
Law Charges
290,000


15.
Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
166,000


16.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
30,000

CLASS IV


1.
Board of Trade
2,153,000


2.
Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports and Industrial Efficiency and Trading, etc., Services)
3,062,000


3.
Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)
18,742,000


4.
Export Credits
100


5.
Export Credits (Special Guarantees, etc.)
100


6.
Ministry of Labour
8,075,000


7.
Ministry of Aviation
77,000,000


8.
Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)
9,000,000


9.
Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services
3,000,000


10.
Ministry of Transport
1,899,000


11.
Roads, etc., England and Wales
44,517,000


12.
Roads, etc., Scotland
5,000,000


13.
Transport (Shipping and Special Services)
340,000


14A.
Transport (British Transport Commission)
50,000,000


15.
Ministry of Power
1,000,000

CLASS V


1.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
7,700,000



2

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland
2,800,000


3.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agritural Grants and Subsidies)
42,000,000


4.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)
4,500,000


5.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
66,000,000


6.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
9,000,000


7.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services)
5,000,000


8.
Food (Strategic Reserves)
800,000


9.
Fishery Grants and Services
2,200,000


10.
Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
950,000


11.
Forestry Commission
4,000,000

CLASS VI




£


1.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government
4,000,000


2.
Housing, England and Wales
26,500,000


3.
Housing, Scotland
9,500,000


4.
General Grant to Local Revenues, England and Wales
172,038,000


5.
General Grant to Local Revenues, Scotland
21,471,000


6.
Rate Deficiency, etc., Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
38,750,000


7.
Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
6,264,000


8.
Ministry of Education
40,000,000


9.
Scottish Education Department
7,990,000


10.
Ministry of Education (Teachers' Superannuation)
100


11.
Scottish Education Department (Teachers' Superannuation)
100


12.
Ministry of Health
1,575,000


13.
Department of Health for Scotland
1,150,000


14.
National Health Service (Hospitals, etc., Services), England and Wales
140,109,000


15.
National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales
56,968,000


16.
Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales
13,650,000


17.
National Health Service (Superannuation), England and Wales
100


18.
National Health Service, etc., Scotland
26,000,000


19.
National Health Service (Superannuation), Scotland
100


20.
Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
2,500,000


21.
National Insurance
70,000,000


22.
Family Allowances
49,500,000


23.
National Assistance Board
64,500,000


24.
War Pensions
38,250,000

CLASS VII


1.
Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain
29,000,000


2.
Office of the Minister for Science
33,000


3.
Atomic Energy
40,000,000


4.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
6,000,000


5.
Medical Research Council
2,100,000


6.
Agricultural Research Council
2,165,000


7.
Nature Conservancy
200,000


8.
Grants for Science
120,000

CLASS VIII


1.
British Museum
370,000


2.
British Museum (Natural History)
200,000


3.
Science Museum
118,000


4.
Victoria and Albert Museum
195,000


5.
Imperial War Museum
21,670

£



6.
London Museum
18,000


7.
National Gallery
160,000


8.
National Maritime Museum
33,000


9.
National Portrait Gallery
16,000


10.
Tate Gallery
48,000


11.
Wallace Collection
16,000


12.
Royal Scottish Museum
46,000


13.
National Galleries of Scotland
43,000


14.
National Library of Scotland
40,333


15.
National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland
12,000


16.
Grants for the Arts
1,600,000

CLASS IX


1.
Ministry of Works
2,452,000


2.
Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom
11,460,000


3.
Public Buildings Overseas
1,439,000


4.
Houses of Parliament Buildings
125,000


5.
Royal Palaces
267,000


6.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
378,000


7.
Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
424,000


8.
Rates on Government Property
9,450,000


9.
Stationery and Printing
8,000,000


10.
Central Office of Information
1,850,000


II.
Government Actuary
21,000


12.
Government Hospitality
60,000


13.
Civil Superannuation, etc.
13,450,000


14.
Post Office Superannuation, etc.
100

Class X


1.
Charity Commission
78, 000


2.
Crown Estate Office
56,000


3.
Friendly Societies Registry
41,000


4.
Royal Mint
100


5.
National Debt Office
100


6.
Public Works Loan Commission
100


7.
Public Trustee
100


8.
Land Registry
100


9.
War Damage Commission
100,000


10.
Office of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements
53,000


11.
Ordnance Survey
1,210,000


12.
Public Record Office
55,000


13.
Scottish Record Office
20,000


14.
Registrar General's Office
275,000


15.
Registrar General's Office, Scotland
35,000


16.
Department of the Registers of Scotland
100


17.
National Savings Committee
450,000

CLASS XI


1.
Broadcasting
11,550,000


2.
Carlisle State Management District
100


3.
State Management Districts, Scotland
100


4.
Pensions, etc. (India, Pakistan and Burma)
2,760,000


5.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc
380,000


6.
Irish Land Purchase Services
585,000


7.
Development Fund
600,000

£



8.
Secret Service
2,400,000


9.
Miscellaneous Expenses
210,000



Total for Civil Estimates
1,439,231,503



Ministry of Defence
6,140,000



Total for Civil Estimates and Ministry of Defence Estimate
1,445,371,503

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1962–63

6. That a sum, not exceeding £142,167,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for expenditure in respect of Navy Services, viz:—

1.
Pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
69,133,000


2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
15,036,000


6.
Scientific Services
24,000,000


10.
Works, Buildings, Machinery and Repairs at Home and Abroad
21,230,000


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
12,767,900


14.
Additional Married Quarters
100




£142,167,000

AIR ESTIMATES, 1962–63

7. That a sum, not exceeding £409,880,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for expenditure in respect of Air Services viz.:—

1.
Pay, etc., of the Air Force
119,180,000


2.
Reserve and Auxiliary Services
679,900


7.
Aircraft and Stores
242,000,000


8.
Works and Lands
42,300,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
5,720,000


11.
Additional Married Quarters
100




£409,880,000

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1961–62

8. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £70,583,429, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates. viz.:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES

CLASS I


1.
House of Lords
13,770


2.
House of Commons
28,995


3.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
158,000


8.
Civil Service Commission
21,250


10.
Exchequer and Audit Department
4,000


11.
Friendly Societies Registry
10


12.
Government Actuary
10


15.
National Debt Office
10


17.
Public Record Office
10

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62

9. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £22,250,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for expenditure, including a grant in aid, beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

SCHEDULE


—
Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote
£
£


1. Pay, &c., of the Air Force
Cr. 840,000
100,000


2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services
Cr. 70,000
—


3. Air Ministry
400,000
—


4. Civilians at Outstations and the Meteorological Office
2,750,000
100,000


5. Movements
700,000
—


6. Supplies
50,000
250,000


7. Aircraft and Stores
17,200,000
*−1,800,000


8. Works and Lands
750,000
*−2,700,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
700,000
*− 800,000


10. Non-effective Services
610,000
—


11. Additional Married Quarters
—
*− 400,000


Total, Air (Supplementary), 1961–62
£22,250,000
*−5,250,000


* Deficit.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESSES), 1960–61

10. That a sum, not exceeding £24,359 8s. 9d be granted to Her Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services, for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1961.

SCHEDULE


Class and Vote



Excess Vote



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Class II








2. Foreign Office Grants and Services








Subhead E.4.—








Yugoslavia (Grant in Aid):








Excess Expenditure
5,826
5
4





Less—Net savings available on other sub heads
5,816
5
4









10
0
0


Class X








4. National Insurance and Family Allowances








Subhead C—








Family Allowances:








Excess Expenditure
21,543
1
6





Add—Deficiency on Subhead Z—








Appropriations in Aid
2,806
7
3









24,349
8
9


Total, Civil (Excesses) £
24,349
8
9

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SERVICES

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: We wish to initiate on this Resolution a short debate on one of the major agricultural Estimates contained in the Supplementary Estimates, 1961–62, namely, that dealing with the slaughter of diseased animals and compensation therefor, Subhead D.1, which, in effect, relates to fowl pest. We find the figures on page 154 of the Blue Book. The additional provision for fowl pest resulting from the heavy incidence of disease will be £3½ million, a considerable increase

over the sum originally estimated and the sums spent in the past.
The Estimates Committee in its Third Report, page vi, commented on the additional provision of over £3 million mainly required for compensation because of an outbreak of fowl pest and reported that this could not have been foreseen. I have gone into the matter and as I find that there has been a similar circumstance before, I think that the Government should give an explanation this afternoon.
After all, we are dealing with large sums of money. I appreciate that it is for a special purpose—to combat disease affecting our livestock production, our fowls and the health of our animals—and that we are anxious not to reduce this expenditure if it is really necessary. Nevertheless, it is only right that we should very carefully examine this expenditure. I recall that about a year ago the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said in an agricultural debate that we must carefully look at our support policy and agricultural expenditure.
On one specific item today—although it may be said to be a limited item—a considerable amount of money is under discussion and it is only right and proper that the House should carefully examine the matter. I have looked up the spring estimates over a period of years and I discover that for 1955–56 there was no Supplementary Estimate. There was a Supplementary Estimate for 1956–57, and I am dealing only with compensation for fowl pest. In that year, 1956–57, the Estimate was for £1,350,000. In 1957–58, there was no Supplementary Estimate and in 1958–59 there was one of £350,000. In 1959–60, we were faced with the large figure of £4½ million and in 1960–61 the figure was £2½ million. Today, for 1961–62, the figure is £3½ million.
We are, therefore, dealing with large sums of money and this has caused concern and various comments. I have with me the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, in which he comments on the various amounts of expenditure for agriculture last year. No doubt hon. Members have read this document. Commenting on fowl pest, he said:
The charge to Subhead D.1"—
that was for the previous year—
in this Account includes approximately £4·9 million for compensation and other expenses


in Great Britain in respect of poultry slaughtered because of outbreaks of fowl pest This is nearly four times the average cost in the previous three years.
The Comptroller and Auditor General went on to say:
Section 48 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, authorises the compulsory slaughter of poultry suffering … from fowl pest and of other poultry which appear to have been exposed to infection of the disease. For poultry, other than diseased poultry so slaughtered, the Act requires the Minister to pay compensation equal to the value of the birds immediately before slaughter.
There followed an examination of the whole administration of the slaughter policy. I will not go into the details of the review, but I would remind the House that the Comptroller and Auditor General stated:
I therefore asked the Ministry whether they were satisfied that compensation had not been paid to any considerable extent in respect of birds affected with fowl pest.
If we read the details which the Comptroller and Auditor General gave we discover that compensation was given in respect of birds where it should not have been given. Thus, it is reasonable to ask if the Act is working. Is the Order which operates under the Act satisfactory, or is too much compensation really being paid? In other words, an alarming amount of money is being spent—four times the average cost for the previous three years—and the Government are asked if their slaughter policy is working and whether compensation is being paid in correct proportions.
That is what we must consider today; whether the additional provision of the £3 million required for compensation because of outbreaks of fowl pest is really necessary. There is no doubt that there has been considerable uneasiness outside the House about this matter. To prove this I quote from a paper read by Professor Titmuss to the National Association for Mental Health, last March. He was talking about public expenditure on mental health and was showing how insufficient money was being devoted to that subject. He compared the expenditure on mental health with that on fowl pest compensation and said:
it is probable that we are now spending a smaller amount per head on community care for the mentally ill (as distinct from the mentally subnormal) than we were in 1951.

And what we are spending today is substantially less than the sum of £4,900,000 paid out in compensation and expenses in dealing with fowl pest in Great Britain in 1959–60 … 
Professor Titmuss was comparing the compensation we are paying to deal with a disease in our poultry flocks with the amount being spent in other sectors of the administration.
I know that there is anxiety in the agricultural world about this matter. It is only right, therefore, that hon. Members should be anxious to scrutinise this expenditure. In view of this relatively long history of compensation for fowl pest, are the Government really satisfied with the present position? The Ministry is asking for an increased Estimate, but is the Minister satisfied with the present arrangement? Is the Government's policy working along the right lines because, after all, these Estimates are only-a reflection of Government policy—in this case agricultural policy in relation to the eradication of disease. Can we really say that that policy is working?
In the Report from which I quoted the Comptroller and Auditor General commented on assurances that were given by the Ministry. Some time has passed since then and we still have considerable outbreaks of fowl pest. The disease is still with us, and so is the concern. Many hon. Members have addressed questions to the Minister about the incidence of fowl pest, its effect on our poultry and, above all, the cost to the Exchequer. The large sums involved indicate the size and seriousness of the problem.
Are the Government satisfied that we are tackling fowl pest in the right way and that their slaughter policy, which has led to large sums of money being paid out in compensation, is correct? Is research into this problem sufficient? I give credit to the work being done at Weybridge and elsewhere. Many hon. Members have visited the research centre at Weybridge. I am in no way denigrating the work that is being done by the scientists and research workers into this problem, but are we working along the right lines? The Government's policy is extremely costly to the Exchequer but, despite that, is it working?
I have here one of the latest Press notices on fowl pest issued by the Ministry. It deals with infected area


restrictions extended in Hampshire and imposed in Dorset. It states:
From midnight, Tuesday, 13th March, restrictions on the movement and marketing of poultry already in operation in North-Eastern Somerset, most of Wiltshire and a large part of North-Western Hampshire are being extended to cover further areas in Hampshire and Dorset.
Since 4th March, sixteen outbreaks of fowl pest have been confirmed in the additional area now coming under the restrictions, which are being imposed in order to reduce the risk of further spread of the disease.
Can we really say that our slaughter policy has succeeded and that the advice which
has been given officially has brought benefits and arrested the outbreak? Of course we cannot. In other words, the pattern of the outbreaks I have mentioned has been repeated in many parts of the country. Inevitably, the Government have to come to the House, as they are doing now, for an increased sum of money for compensation.
Many hon. Members are worried about this, as it affects many constituencies. Many hon. Members have constituencies where the incidence of fowl pest is great. The industry is now becoming a major one. Just as we were, and still are, concerned about foot-and-mouth disease—there is an item dealing with it in the Estimates—so there is concern about fowl pest. To the poultry industry fowl pest is as important as foot-and-mouth disease is to other sections of agriculture.
Our poultry production now is estimated to be worth £250 million per year, just less than the total sale of farm crops and nearly double that of horticultural produce. I have figures from the Farmer and Stock-breeder, which has a poultry section, and I will give some of them to show the importance of the industry and why we must be concerned about our policy. Should we deal with fowl pest by slaughtering rather than by a vaccination policy?
There are 452,000 egg producers registered with the British Egg Marketing Board, an increase of 36 per cent. since the initial poll in 1957. Packing stations throughput in the last full year was 21,277,052 boxes, each of 360 eggs. We have more than 29 million fowls of over six months in England and Wales, more than 1½ million ducks, 325,000 geese and more than 5 million turkeys.

The turkey industry is affected very much by fowl pest. Farm gate or direct sales of eggs are estimated at 28·4 per cent. I could give many other figures.
Consequently, it is apparent that we are discussing a major industry. When someone asked me what we were debating today I said "fowl pest", and he smiled. It may be that fowl pest is not very exciting after the introduction of the victors at Middlesbrough and Orpington, but it is an important subject, and every hon. Member who has remained in the Chamber to discuss this matter appreciates its importance and the seriousness of the issue to agriculture.
As this is a major industry, there ought to be a clear assurance from the Government that research into a disease which hits
the industry so hard will be stepped up. I am not satisfied that we are spending enough on it. After all, we should relate this to the vast sums of money that we are now spending on fowl pest slaughter compensation. The Poultry and Egg Producers Association of Great Britain, a very responsible body—many hon. Members are directly and indirectly connected with it—has expressed concern about the Ministry's attitude. In its 1962 year book, throughout its annual report and in the section dealing with fowl pest, the Association expressed concern about the Government's policy. The Association has, I know, co-operated fully with the Ministry in publicising the dangers of fowl pest and the need to take precautions at farm level, at markets and elsewhere.
But what does the Minister say to the following extract from the Association's report:
Following representations by the Association to the Ministry of Agriculture which deplored the Ministry's failure to hold any meetings of its Fowl Pest ad hoc Committee for many months, the long awaited Government committee of inquiry into fowl pest was set up during the year, and upon invitation, the Association submitted to it a detailed memorandum of evidence.
Why did the Ministry delay so much in holding meetings of its Committee? Surely the Minister must have appreciated the seriousness of fowl pest. Surely the Ministry, which had come to the House repeatedly for increased Estimates, must have known that it was a matter requiring urgent attention.
While I welcome the setting up of the Committee—now known as the Plant Committee—which will soon be reporting, why was there so much delay and lethargy? It is important that we should know, because this affects policy, and that is the concern of all of us. Why did the Minister fail to hold meetings of his Committee for so long? We should like some assurances on this subject.
What action are the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland taking to prevent the disease growing? I can give examples of what I mean. There has been concern that fowl pest has been spread from chicken carcases which have been imported. An outbreak at Mildenhall has been traced to an American Army depot. Poultry farmers are concerned whether imports of poultry meat direct from America to, say, Holy Loch, might be infected. This is not an exaggeration. We have already had an outbreak which has been traced back to an American base.
I should like to know what representations have been made to the American Army authorities. I know that with regard to Holy Loch the Secretary of State has promised to do something, but what is the Minister of Agriculture doing about carcases imported into England? Have representations been made to the appropriate military authorities? We do not desire to create a scare, but it is right and proper that precautions should be taken at every centre where there are imported carcases which might lead to the spreading of fowl pest.
Also, what steps is the Minister taking to stop the spread of chicken offal over the land for mammal purposes? This is thought to cause the spread of infection. What other precautions have been taken? What instructions have been issued to market authorities and auctioneers, who have certain responsibilities under legislation, including the Fowl Pest Order, 1936, the Live Poultry (Restrictions) Order, 1957, and the Live Poultry (Movement Records) Order, 1958? All these impose duties upon market authorities and personnel working at markets.
What precautions have been taken and what new instructions have been issued? Have auctioneers had special instructions?

Is the Minister satisfied that our markets are thoroughly cleansed and disinfected after each sale? What steps have been taken to alter the practice of the use of noms de plume by purchasers, which creates considerable difficulties in tracing them after an outbreak? What instructions have been issued to poultry slaughterhouses in relation to, for example, neighbouring flocks, control of visitors, hygiene of employees, disinfecting of vehicles, disposal of swill, and so on?
All these are important matters, and we should like to know whether the Government are satisfied about the precautions which are taken, or should be taken, and whether statutory duties are imposed on the persons concerned. Also, have the Government been energetic enough about these things?
Despite all the criticisms that I have made, I appreciate that fowl pest is a difficult subject to deal with scientifically. It is a difficult subject for us to discuss as laymen, but it is one of major importance to a major industry. We all know that the disease goes back to 1926, when it became known as the "Newcastle disease". Since then we have had various outbreaks. There was a very large outbreak in 1933, and the Government issued a fowl pest Order in 1936. Obviously, that Order failed.
So far, the legislation which has been introduced by the Government, however worthy their motives, has failed. Ever since 1926 we have had intermittent outbreaks of fowl pest. Fowl pest is often difficult to discover, for its symptoms are extremely difficult to detect, and in the end a slaughter policy was recommended. I should like the Minister to tell me whether he is satisfied with the slaughter policy which we have pursued since the 1930s. Is the slaughter policy proving successful?
I believe that the Plant Committee may well be in favour of a vaccination policy. I hope that is an intelligent guess, for I do not know, but I feel that will be so. It may well be that the Government's slaughter policy will be altered. If a vaccination policy is introduced, the cost of the vaccine is likely to be placed on breeders and owners, and the Exchequer will, therefore, save a considerable sum of money.


It may well be that the Plant Committee will report on these lines. Consequently, I should like to know what research has been done into vaccination for this purpose.
There are three lines here. One is the use of dead vaccine, the virus having been killed. Another is the use of live virus. Another is the use of a modified or attenuated virus. I should like to know, but without too much detail, whether the Government have conducted adequate research into the use of vaccines. Research into vaccines has been done in the United States and, I am informed, in Holland and France as well. What research has been done in this country?
If we can produce a successful vaccine, it will not only save the Exchequer large sums of money, but also save our producers considerable sums of money. Large stocks of valuable birds will be saved, and the cost of the vaccine will be negligible compared with the value of the produce with which we are dealing. Consequently, from the point of view of both the Exchequer and the producers it is essential for us to speed up our research into how to deal with fowl pest and, above all, into the use of vaccines. What research has been done in this direction? I have a feeling that we have not done enough.
For example, a distinguished veterinary scientist from the United States, Dr. Bankowsky, of the University of California, was working at the Ministry's Foot and Mouth Centre at Pirbright, Surrey, in 1958–59. This man had done original research work on modified vaccines against fowl pest, but he was never consulted
about it by the Ministry even though he was over here at one of the Ministry's establishments. Since his return to America, he has perfected a vaccine. What steps is the Ministry taking to investigate the claims of the Bankowsky vaccine, especially in view of the fact that the Americans claim that it is the answer?
What research have the Government conducted in that direction? Why have they restricted the use of virus to their own establishments? Why have private centres of research been denied the use of virus? This is a matter in which I expect the support of hon. Members opposite. I am informed that private

research establishments which conduct vaccine research have not been able to obtain the virus because of restrictions imposed by the Ministry. If that is so, it is a shocking commentary on our position.
There may be proper scientific reasons for that, and the Minister might be able to give the answer, but I should like to know why the restrictions were imposed. Possibly, it was because of the fear of infection. Even so, the Government could have called upon distinguished scientists and veterinary surgeons in private establishments, who have an honoured record. What is the reason for this restriction?
I trust that I have not monopolised too much time in initiating this debate. My case today is first, that the Estimate is large—several million pounds—and that we need a detailed explanation. Secondly, there has been a long history of forecasting which has been commented upon by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Thirdly, fowl pest disease has a long history. It causes concern in the industry, hardship to many individual producers and the loss of much valuable stock and food. Finally, I indict the Government for their lethargy towards research. Those are the five main points of my approach. We should have adequate answers from the Government if the Estimate is to be approved by the House.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Sir Spencer Summers: On a point of order. Can you give us guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Four separate Votes are before us and we have approximately three hours from the start to deal with them. Is it your intention to ration them to equal time, or can you give us any notion of how the time is to be apportioned?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The Chair has no power to ration the time. We merely continue the debate until we come to a decision on the Vote in question and then we proceed to the next, until we come to the end of the proceedings, when all the remaining Votes will be put.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: It would be ungracious if the first speaker from this side of the House did not at least


begin by saying that we greatly appreciate the action of the Opposition in giving us a chance today to discuss these Supplementary Estimates. I have on other occasions commented on the fact that far too often the vote of Supply is brushed over only too quickly and we get on to the more congenial task of demanding more money. On this occasion, the Opposition have undergone a notable conversion and it would be most ungracious if we did not thank them for it and welcome the fact.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) seemed to trot amiably around the point without making much of it. What disturbs me is that we are being asked for £6 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent. on the original Estimate. Speaking as a layman and from an abysmal ignorance, I cannot see why, given a catastrophe, we should not have a vastly increased liability over even the miserable, unwelcome one which we face today.

Sir S. Summers: In the interest purely of accuracy, may I point out that the increase is 29·4 per cent., as is stated in the Report of the Estimates Committee?

Mr. Peyton: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. My understanding of the Estimates Committee's Report, however, is that additional provision of £3,050,000 is required for compensation because of an outbreak of fowl pest. We see from page 150 of the Supplementary Estimate that this additional sum is required on an original Estimate of £3,209,000. That makes it fairly clear that the increase which is demanded is roughly 100 per cent.
That discloses a fairly serious situation. Apart from anything else, it occurs in an industry the face of which has changed almost beyond recognition. No longer is it in the general category of what is understood to be the agricultural industry. It is much more of a factory than anything which previously had a place in agriculture. Therefore, in attempting our duty of safeguarding Government expenditure, we should ask the Minister whether the Government have considered the advisability of continuing this policy. The face of the industry has changed and the liability has changed with it. Might it not be right for the Government to consider whether

such a compensation policy is advisable for an industry which is really situated in factories?
It might well be said that the fowl pest hazard to the broiler industry is similar to the fire hazard and that it would be right to put upon the broiler industry the burden of carrying its own insurance in the event of the catastrophe of fowl pest rather than looking to the Exchequer or to the taxpayer for a sum of compensation, the limit of which the Treasury cannot possibly foresee. This is a point to which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should pay serious attention.
There is a tendency to allow these things to go by without giving them the serious attention which they need. There are relatively few of us in the House this afternoon to show a lively interest in the constant creeping up of these Estimates year after year. I hope that I may be forgiven if I remind the House of a
couplet by Mr. T. S. Eliot:
Those who sit in a house the use of which is forgotten are like snakes that lie on mouldering stairs content in the sunlight.
It is not for me to say who is a puff adder, a cobra or an asp. It is, however, of great importance that we should not let these relatively small sums of £2 million or £3 million pass by without careful examination and without challenging the Government, before we vote Supply, to make our position clear beyond per-adventure.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I do not intend to detain the House long, but I hope to draw attention to one or two points which have not yet been made but which I consider seriously in need of attention. As the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has just said, we are dealing with a Supplementary Estimate relating to an increase of from £3,209,000 to £6,259,000—as the hon. Member pointed out, an increase of nearly 100 per cent.
I question whether we are justified in pouring out these relatively prodigious sums of public money in the way that the Ministry is doing. It seems to me that the Ministry is so complacent with precedent, by what previous Ministers have done in paying compensation for the slaughter of animals, that its mind is closed to other methods of dealing


with what is, admittedly, a serious problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) drew attention to many points. I will not repeat what my hon. Friend has said, but I am not clear from page 150 of the Estimate exactly how much is covered by fowl pest compensation. Obviously, it must be a considerable sum. On 6th November, in answer to a Question of mine, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told me that to 31st October last, £2,795,000 had been paid out in the current financial year.
In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton), the hon. Gentleman said:
Compensation in the last three months has been assessed at £664,000. about half of which is payable to one breeder ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 596.]
I put another Question to the Minister on 7th December, asking
what estimate he has formed of the cost of keeping an index of claims for compensation for fowl pest and for checking future claims with this index.
That was because the hon. Gentleman rather sneered at a supplementary question of mine about checking the claims to see that one breeder was not getting compensation time after time from the Exchequer.
I put this supplementary question to the Minister on 7th December:
May I refer the hon. Gentleman to a statement he made that one claim alone amounted to £⅓ million? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been suggested that that claimant got £250,000 last year and a substantial sum the year before? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is something that requires a thorough investigation?
The Minister replied:
My replies were not inconsistent, because the previous Question referred to making up an index of past claims. The reply today refers to the annual cost of keeping an index of future claims. It is possible to check back on any individual case where it appears to serve a useful purpose, but each claim must be decided on its individual merits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1521–2.]
That reply seemed to indicate that the Minister had not grasped the significance of the fact that it seems to be possible for a poultry keeper to get £⅓ million in compensation out of the Government, possibly—I cannot substantiate what I am told—following a year in which he had £¼ million.
I just do not know, but I do think that the Minister ought to instigate a very thorough investigation into how these claims are being dealt with and being repeated. Did the poultry keeper who got one-third of £1 million keep those birds on the same ground on which he kept his birds the previous year, when also he got a huge sum in compensation? The House is entitled to know from the Minister. I should have thought that any Minister worth his salt would, after my allegations, whether they were true or not, have instituted a thorough inquiry. In putting these allegations I do so in all good faith, voicing complaints made to me, and I put them forward because the Minister told the House that one man got one-third of £1 million. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate I hope that he will tell us that a thorough investigation has been made, and let us know what the results are.
I will if I may weary the House with
a note which I got, anonymously it is true, posted at Norwich on 15th December last. It referred to the fact that I was putting another Question to the Minister and it
says:
Well done! This fowl pest industry is getting out of hand. At the worst it is criminal (the turning of a switch?) At the best it is a widespread racket. You are correct about the poultry keeper and company you have in mind. The firm whose total compensation amounts to nearly £500,000 now produce the turkeys, etc., for someone else to advertise.
He sent the advertisement, and he finished by adding:
The taxpayer is being systematically milked and swindled.
A charge of that sort does need thorough investigation by the responsible Minister. Year after year now we are getting huge claims for compensation for fowl pest, and I think that the House is entitled to an answer by the Minister to serious charges of this kind. It seems to me, as one who has some knowledge of administration, that this kind of thing should be going on year after year is simply the result of very lax administration.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I should like to pursue this question of the very big claims in cases in which contact birds have to be slaughtered in


fowl pest outbreaks, the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). I think that he was suggesting fraud on a fairly big scale. I do not want to suggest anything of that kind.

Mr. Hayman: It does seem to me that there may be fraud. I do not suggest that there is, but there certainly seems ground for suspicion that there may be.

Mr. Bullard: Whether there is or whether there is not, it is not that aspect with which I want to deal.
I want to raise the question whether these very big claims ought to be met at all. My reason for arguing on these lines is this. It is well known throughout the whole of agriculture that when we over-intensify any enterprise we very greatly increase the risks. That is an age-old principle of husbandry. It is upon that that the whole basis of the rotation of crops is founded. With almost every plant and every animal which concerns the farmer this truth has to be observed.
In the consideration of this matter by the Estimates Committee last year my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) raised this question with the witnesses from the Ministry of Agriculture. The answers which were obtained were to the effect that there did not seem to be any evidence that intensification itself was a contributory cause of the disease, but that it was the case that where we had these vast numbers of poultry together under one roof, as is very common in modern conditions, we got very rapid spread throughout the whole unit, and that there was no alternative but to pay compensation for the lot because the lot had to be slaughtered.
I think that that is undoubtedly true, but I wonder whether a warning ought not to be given to poultry keepers that if they do mass birds in these huge flocks they will, if they suffer an outbreak of fowl pest, run the risk of not being paid compensation for them. I do not really see why poultry keepers should be compensated for flying in the face of one of the elementary risks of over-intensification.
I wish that the Plant Committee, which is considering this matter, and no doubt

considering this aspect, would hurry up and make its report. The Committee was appointed in 1960. I know it has got a very difficult problem in front of it in producing an alternative, if one can be produced, to the present slaughter policy, but at any rate I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an assurance that this aspect of the matter will be considered by the Committee—and by the Ministry if the Committee's recommendation is to the effect that compensation and slaughter policy must continue.
That is really the only point I wanted to make on this Supplementary Estimate. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was quite correct in saying that the increase was of 100 per cent. I believe that it is (really a bit more than 100 per cent. because compensation for fowl pest would have been £3½ million if it had not been for savings under the heading of disease of animals, which brings the figure down to just over £3 million. Nevertheless for this purpose we do have this sum which, with the best will in the world for the poultry industry, none of us, I think, can countenance without some degree of protest.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I would not have intervened in this debate had I not heard the frightening figures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) for compensation to one person. One-third of £1 million is a tremendous figure of compensation to be paid to one man for loss due to fowl pest.
I quite agree that it is reasonable to suggest that there should be compensation for such a terrible disease as this. It is possible that, were there no compensation payable, a person would not notify an outbreak and it would spread like wildfire all over the countryside, and so it may be just as well, in order to get notification at the time that the outbreak happens, that it should be known that compensation is payable.
Nevertheless, there is an assurance which we should like from the Minister. We know there is intensive breeding of poultry—in incubators with a capacity of 10,000 eggs, and the raising of chicks by intensive breeders. There are these


methods of intense breeding which produce vast quantities of poultry. Are we certain that these large companies which go in for breeding on this scale carry out the processes of breeding, mating, and killing for slaughter and rearing for commercial egg-laying under the most hygienic conditions possible to save the taxpayer from having to pay these huge sums in compensation?
I agree that when these diseases break out and the farmer exercises all the control within his power and the animals are lost through no fault of his own, it is reasonable to compensate him. It is not easy to deal with nature. But when we are dealing with these vast sums in the Estimates the general public are entitled to feel and the House of Commons is entitled to know that the people who enter this business do so with full knowledge of the job and that they use satisfactory appliances, that hygienic conditions are maintained, and their general husbandry is such that the chances of their poultry contracting disease, are considerably lessened.
There should be no payment by right if neglect can be proved on a farm and if hygienic conditions are not maintained. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some assurance that the Department takes every measure possible to ensure that the rearing of poultry, either on free range or in intensive conditions, is done in the most scientific and most hygienic way so that we may cut down this huge annual figure which the taxpayer has to pay in compensation for losses.

5.2 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: As one who was concerned with the Estimates Committee's Report on Supplementary Estimates, I should like to make one or two brief comments. When the requirements of a Department turn out to be nearly double what was first expected there seems to be a suggestion that there is some sinister situation which Parliament should examine. But it is not because there is a great increase in the Estimates that an examination is required, but because no less than £6 million is required to pay compensation for fowl pest.
It is difficult to express what I have in mind. When all the Supplementary

Estimates are taken together and added to the original Estimate to make a grand total it is found, when it all comes out in the wash and public expenditure under all heads is taken into account, that it is less year after year, as shown in the Report, than the original Estimate plus the Supplementary Estimates. This is because in the original Estimate and in the Supplementary Estimates no account is taken of the savings in those funds for which no Supplementary Estimate is required. This puts into proper perspective the whole essence of Supplementary Estimates.
I intervened because I wanted to urge that we should not wait until Supplementary Estimates are due to decide whether a Department needs a microscope to be applied to its expenditure. This should be decided when the original Estimates are presented to Parliament. It may be no fault whatsoever of the Department concerned that it has to ask Parliament for a great deal more after the original Estimate was made. It is as well to keep in perspective the degree of blame possibly attributable to Departments in presenting Supplementary Estimates. It is easy to err on the side of criticism which, in the nature of the case, may not be justified. This, however, does not detract from the value of a debate when we raise a matter of £6 million and it is thought that some examination of the situation is required.

5.5 p.m.

Sir Harwood Harrison: I should like to put the point of view of some of my constituents on this subject. Over the last two or three years I have written on it on a number of occasions to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. When we are being asked to vote nearly double the original sum we might think that the industry was satisfied, but I do not think that anyone in the industry is satisfied with the present situation. Although the small man who may be compelled to destroy 150 laying birds receives compensation, he loses his source of income.
There is a good deal of anxiety about the vast sums which are paid out where there is a great concentration of birds, but there is another source of anxiety. There are a number of farms where Ministry officials have taken tests and Weybridge has reported that the poultry


are diseased, but one can never convince the farmers concerned that that is so. Many of them are experienced men who know the signs when their birds are failing and they all tell me that their birds were healthy. I do not say whether they are right or wrong, but it should be borne in mind that mistakes can be made, even at Weybridge, and that in liability to error we are all human.
I urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to assure the House that the Minister will take quick action when the Plant Committee reports and that he will not be hidebound in the future if there is a better way simply because we have stuck to certain other ways in the past. We shall respect my right hon. Friend even more than we now do if his Department presents to the House a new method to change the present situation.
I should like to point out to my hon. Friend that with the development of the broiler industry difficulties arise when the established boundaries are strictly observed in prescribing areas where regulations dealing with the outbreak of fowl pest apply. I have had bitter complaints from constituents, particularly at the time of the year when they have large stocks of fattened poultry, such as Christmas, that when there is an outbreak of fowl pest they are not allowed to send their healthy birds to the factory to which they are accustomed. The Ministry tells them to send the poultry to another factory within a certain area. They then find that that factory is completely filled with deliveries and cannot accept more.
Many poultry keepers therefore suffer financial loss through an outbreak of fowl pest even when their own stock is healthy. Many of them say that if there were no compensation there might be less disease. The present situation is serious and calls for urgent action. I hope that the Minister will agree with any ideas which are put forward in the best interests not only of the taxpayer, but of the industry as a whole.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I should like to pursue the line followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). Two factors are involved in this matter. First, there is the fundamental

decision whether or not to slaughter. I think that the Ministry is right in the slaughter policy when fowl pest is found. I do not believe that research into vaccine is sufficiently advanced to warrant the risk of adopting the vaccination procedure at the moment, but I should like to hear my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on that point.
The second factor, of vital importance in view of the enormous amount of money we are talking about, is the fact that we have these large units which by no stretch of imagination have anything to do with farming. They are found in urban areas and frequently in borough areas where there is no question of attached farmland. In those cases where there are units of 5,000 head or more my right hon. Friend should earnestly consider whether compensation should be paid, or whether there should be a statutory obligation upon the owners to be insured. If they were insured, the charge in the event of an outbreak of fowl pest would not be on the Treasury, but on the insurance company.
But there is one snag, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). The important thing is that fowl pest should always be reported immediately the farmer suspects it. If we do away with the compulsory compensation system there will be a danger that owners of poultry will not report fowl pest immediately. My hon. Friend must look into that point. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it would be an insurmountable problem if we adopted the insurance principle.

Sir Douglas Glover: Can my hon. Friend tell me why he thinks that insurance would be good in the case of flocks of over 5,000 birds and, presumably, bad in the case of smaller flocks? The insurance principle seems to be a sound one, and I do not see why it should not apply to all flocks.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If we go below 5,000 birds we are usually talking about flocks which are free-ranging on the farm, in which case I do not think that the insurance principle could apply. A farmer's wife may have 300 birds, in a small unit. In such a case, insurance would not be required. It might be possible to go down as far as 2,000


birds, but that is about the limit. If we went below that it would not be a practical proposition for my hon. Friend to carry out a proper system of inspection and to make certain that all outbreaks were reported at the earliest possible moment.
Subhead A.3 refers to grants for the reconstruction of sea defences. I apologise for wearying the House with this, but it is a very urgent matter in my constituency. About two weeks ago we had some very bad gales, and part of my constituency was badly damaged. Padstow is an estuarial town and, therefore, does not come under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Any compensation that might become due must, unfortunately, come from the river board or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Two weeks ago a shipbuilding and ship-repairing yard in Padstow was badly damaged by high winds and gales, which brought down part of the sea wall.
The urgency of the matter lies in the fact that we shall have more high tides and high winds in the near future, and I am hoping that when this matter comes before my right hon. Friend it can be included under Subhead A.3, because the wall has been completely breached by the gales.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is straining the limits of what is in order on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but Subhead A.3 refers to grants for the reconstruction of sea defences, and the sea defences of this town were breached two weeks ago.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Does not the subhead go on to make clear that it is in relation to the
Provision required to meet grants and outstanding claims "?
Surely the hon. Member's claim can hardly have been outstanding at that time. If it was, it must have been provided for.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The claim was not outstanding at that moment. I shall not weary the House further. I merely express the hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with this matter sympathetically.

5.14 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I shall not keep the House for very long, because there are other Votes that we wish to deal with, but I am interested in the question of fowl pest. The Estimates Sub-committee went into this matter very closely last year. What worries me is the fact that there appears to be a high probability that a vaccination policy will take the place of the slaughter policy. It has taken years for the Plant Committee to report, and I cannot help reflecting that if it had been dealing with a human ailment, or with something necessary to win a war, the Committee would have reported in a great deal less than two years. The moral to be drawn is that Departments are very prone to feel that they have settled a problem merely by appointing a committee to investigate it. The Ministry of Agriculture probably said, "We have appointed this Plant Committee. Our conscience is now clear."
I am glad if the Ministry's conscience is clear, but in the meantime millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money goes up the spout. Departments should be forced to stimulate these committees to act with urgency. If a Committee of this House had been appointed it would have been required to report within the limits of a single Session, sitting two or three times a week to do so, and I see no reason why a body of eminent scientists should not sit twice a week to investigate a matter which is of extreme financial urgency.
This leisurely method of procedure is to be deplored. It may be because the members of the Committee are not paid, in which case we cannot expect them to come to London more than once a fortnight, or even once a month. That is quite reasonable. But if that is the case, they should be paid. When millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money is at stake the spending of a few thousand pounds in paying the scientific members of a committee would be money well spent.
In my experience on the Estimates Committee, this sort of thing happens in many Departments. A committee is appointed, and the matter drifts on for some time. The rule should be that as soon as a committee is appointed


steps are taken to see that it acts as expeditiously as possible.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: In a farmers' paper at the weekend I read that the Plant Committee would be reporting within a month. Whether or not this is true I do not know, but I hope that it is. If it reports within a month we may have something far more difficult to discuss than we are discussing now. I hope that that Committee will not support a vaccination policy. Let us keep our flocks clean. We must not allow fowl pest to become endemic.
Hon. Members have suggested that fowl pest is increasing because of the tremendous intensification in poultry keeping. I see no grounds for that allegation. Fowl pest is introduced by contact. When very large numbers of birds are kept together the greatest care is taken by the poultry keepers to preserve the purity of the flocks. The danger lies in the fact that there are so many contacts from different quarters. Fowl pest is in the egg, and in the bones of imported birds. Birds come here and are bought by housewives, after which the bones are thrown out. In all kinds of ways the disease is transmitted from infected birds, dead or alive. That is why there has been an increase in the disease.
Poultry keepers in Lancashire have
been punished by this disease for a long time, and they are tired of it. Many of them are getting out of the industry altogether. The Minister should introduce stringent regulations governing the reintroduction of poultry on a farm that has been infected. Only when a farmer has gone for three months clear, has had his cotes and appliances disinfected, and has done all the necessary things to his land, should he be allowed to start up again. There are all kinds of difficulties about restarting. A poultry keeper may even buy infected poultry without being aware of it. At least twelve months should elapse before a farmer or poultry keeper is allowed to restock his place, to make sure that there is no infection left in the ground or in the appliances.
One hon. Gentleman opposite said that one of his constituents had told him that if there was no compensation we would

not have so much fowl pest. I had the same suggestion put to me by a poultry farmer in my constituency only on Saturday. He told me, "You need not abolish compensation altogether, but out it in half." When a person gets more in compensation than he paid for the birds, it is a tremendous temptation.
We know that the assessors of the poultry do their best, but there are some very smart dealers in the industry. If the compensation were administered a little more stringently, there would not be as much fowl pest as there is at present. Whatever the report of the Plant Committee may be, I hope that the regulations covering fowl pest will be made a little more stringent.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I wish to add my voice in support of those who have expressed concern at the considerable increase in the sum allotted for fowl pest. However, I disagree entirely with what was suggested by my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). If any fowl producer is to become competitive, we cannot discourage him from having as big a unit as he possibly can. What way is there for a man in eggs or poultry to become more competitive and to hold his place in the markets of this country and, perhaps, in the Common Market—if we join—other than by increasing the size of his unit? Directly to give him a disincentive by saying that, if his unit is over 5,000 birds, he wil not qualify for compensation, is entirely the wrong method of tackling this problem.
I want to take the discussion away from fowl pest for a moment or two. I apologise to my hon Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if I am being exceptionally dense, but I cannot, for the life of me, understand exactly what the figure in Subhead L, on page 150 represents. I have turned to the Explanatory Note, on page 155, but I am still not sure what the figure represents. There has been a marked increase from £45,000 to £203,000. I should be obliged if my hon. Friend could throw a shaft of light on that.
On page 151 of the Supplementary Estimate, under Subhead Q, there is reference to the purchase of sugar from


South Africa. In the Explanatory Note on page 156, there is shown a difference between payments and receipts of more than £1 million. Does the total figure given for receipts represent the same amount or same quantity of sugar as was purchased? In other words, did we sell all the sugar we received? If so, am I correct in assuming that there is an apparent loss of approximately 50 per cent. on this transaction?
I understand that South Africa's participation in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement will end in 1966, but that, as from that date, her existing quota of 150,000 tons of sugar per annum will no longer be permitted to her. Perhaps at that time the Government will consider enlarging the quota for home-produced sugar.

5.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): A great many questions have been asked about this Supplementary Estimate in respect of fowl pest, and I shall be very ready to try to explain as much as I can. If I am unable to give satisfactory answers to every technical question put to me—there was a very large number of them—I will certainly communicate with hon. Gentlemen concerned.
The discussion has ranged not only over the conditions pertaining last year, which have given rise to this Estimate, but also about our policy for the future. The Plant Committee's report is due to be published and will be in the hands of hon. Gentlemen within a very few days. In a way, it is rather a pity that this debate has preceded publication of the report. We have not held the report back. One cannot get a report of this size published within a matter of days of a Minister receiving it, but its not being available does limit the value of this debate.

Mr. Peyton: Very much the reverse.

Mr. Vane: I am glad that my hon. Friend says "Very much the reverse", but at least it does, perhaps, make unrealistic discussion of certain future developments when we know that authoritative comments on some of them may be in the hands not only of the industry, but also of hon. Gentlemen, in a few days.

Mr. Peart: Whilst we do not wish to show any disrespect towards members of the Plant Committee, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the House of Commons which is discussing this Estimate and that Parliament is a more important body even than that Committee.

Mr. Vane: I do not wish to be disrespectful to any hon. Gentleman, least of all to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who asked a number of pertinent questions. But the fact remains that the gentlemen on this Committee were chosen for their expert knowledge, that they have given a great deal of time over a long period, and that their conclusions will be very valuable to us when we have them in our hands.
The hon. Member for Workington divided his speech into a number of paragraphs, each of which virtually amounted to a question. He ended on the fact that the cost seemed to vary abnormally from year to year. He asked whether our slaughter policy was working. The slaughter policy works towards the objective of eradicating the disease.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether compensation is too generous and went on to ask other questions. Are we doing enough research? Have we a proper check on imports from the United States? In particular, are we aware of all the developments in vaccines? Other speeches have carried on some of these questions and have developed others, and I will do my best to answer them all.
It is true that compensation this year is again at a high figure. It is paid to the owners of slaughtered birds, for contacts, birds not showing any symptoms of the disease. It is demonstrably the case that the sum we are asking for is substantially higher than the Estimate Which the House approved last July. We are now seeking an additional £3½ million which, with the original £1 million, will bring the figure to £4½ million.
This figure must be considered against the background of what we spent in compensation in previous years. The hon. Member for Workington mentioned this. In 1959–60, we spent £4·4 million, and last year £3·4 million. It


may be asked why, in the face of this, we originally sought provision for only £1 million. The reason is that, by agreement with the Treasury, we have hitherto deliberately confined our annual Estimate dealing with fowl pest and foot-and-mouth disease to the figure below which payments were unlikely to fall, even if the year turned out to be a very good one, from the point of view of outbreaks of disease.
In 1958–59, for instance, we spent only a little more than £1 million, which shows that the original figure in the Estimates was not as wildly optimistic as it might now appear. However, when the Estimates Committee considered the Ministry's Estimates last year, it criticised this basis of estimating as unrealistic. As a result, our Estimates for 1962–63 will take full account of the actual cost of outbreaks in the past few years, and we shall, in due course, ask the House to approve a figure of about £3·5 million for fowl pest compensation. We hope that that might in the end prove to be an overestimate, but, in accordance with the comments made, we are now to base our Estimates on this new and different calculation.
It has been said in various connections that we are complacent about the increased number of outbreaks and the consequential heavy increase in the cost of compensation in recent years. The House knows that the increase in outbreaks was one of the reasons which led my right hon. Friend's predecessor and the Secretary of State for Scotland to set up in 1960 a committee to review the whole of our present fowl pest policy and that explains why the Departmental Ad Hoc Committee has not been meeting meanwhile, because its work was taken over by the Plant Committee appointed to go further into the matter.

Mr. Peyton: I have made no charge of complacency yet, but I am concerned to know whether the Ministry is to break new ground and not go on, year after year, I care not on what formula, paying out £3 million, £3½ million or whatever it may be. Will my hon. Friend look into the whole business of making the larger units insure themselves?

Mr. Vane: That is another question, which I shall come to later.
I was saying that the next year's Estimates will follow more closely the higher level of compensation that we have paid for the past few years. I thought, therefore, that, in view of the criticism, the House might like to hear that that decision had been made.
The Plant Committee's report has been received by my right hon. Friend, and will be in the hands of all hon. Members in the matter of a very few days. It is unfortunate that we have not got the recommendations of the Committee, and consequently cannot discuss them today, because, in one sense this has, I think, robbed today's discussion of a certain value. Nevertheless, I now come to some of the more technical questions which have been put to me.
The question of fowl pest is a difficult one, and the time which has been spent
by the Plant Committee, as I think hon. Members will agree, has been well spent. It has, I know, gone into the matter very thoroughly. At one time, we wondered whether there would be value in having an interim report, but, on balance, the Committee preferred to continue and present one final report. The report was not very far away when the questions to which the hon. Gentleman referred were being put to my right hon. Friend and myself. Meanwhile, it is true that epidemics have continued to hit the poultry population in some parts of England, and East Anglia has been mentioned as the area worst hit, but there have been other outbreaks, including a serious one in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Somerset. With the increasing size of poultry and turkey units, considerable sums of money have on occasion been paid out to individual owners.
Questions have been asked whether we could not consider a different policy, and if the outbreaks continue, some modification of compensation for the larger units. As long as we have a general slaughter policy in the interests of the industry aimed at the eradication of the disease, there does not seem to me to be justification for singling out one individual rather than another to receive a larger scale of compensation.
I shall come later to how the compensation is assessed, but the fact that


a man, large or small, has to have his flock slaughtered does not necessarily mean that he has neglected his flock, or that the disease is on his own premises. It may be that the whole cause lies with the development of the disease on a neighbour's premises, so that the hon. Gentleman should not be too ready to criticise the present basis of compensation, although I do admit that the way that the poultry industry is developing, means, particularly in the case of turkeys, that large sums of money have, on occasion, been involved.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the case to which I referred was thoroughly investigated and, if so, whether the Ministry was satisfied with the results of that investigation?

Mr. Vane: We do not pay out large sums of money on the scale which the hon. Gentleman was mentioning, or, for that matter, smaller ones, without a check and the proper tests being satisfied. There are, as he knows, Checks all the way down the line. All these items, large and small, are subject to various audits.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the disease as being of long standing in this country, but we should keep this matter in proportion. The disease did not become a serious problem in this country until 1947, and with the powers of slaughter and compensation which were already available to us under the Diseases of Animals Acts, there was at that stage every reason to suppose that by bringing the slaughter policy into operation right away we could eradicate the disease. There are some countries where the disease has been endemic for a long time. We, on the other hand, have been able to attempt to eradicate the disease, even though I admit that our efforts have not met with the success that was hoped in the first place.
In 1956–57, the disease began to assume more serious proportions, and in that year compensation amounted to £1,400,000. Nevertheless, in 1958, we succeeded in eradicating a very serious epidemic in Lancashire, and although East Anglia continues to be troubled in a very severe way, it is not true to say that the slaughter policy cannot achieve very considerable success. We have the evidence of a successful experience in Lancashire. We spent a little more

than £1 million in compensation in 1958–59, but by 1960 compensation had grown to nearly £4½ million. It was then that my right hon. Friend's predecessor realised that the whole situation was developing differently from what we had hoped, and asked the Plant Committee to review the policy.
It is true, as hon. Members have said, that the industry has recently grown enormously and that intensive methods are being more and more used. These have brought their own problems, and I think that we all have sympathy with what some hon. Members have said about the future of some of the victims of the disease. The fact that the birds
are more numerous and thicker on the ground certainly facilitates the spread of the disease, even though it does not necessarily facilitate its original incidence. It does, however, certainly facilitate the spread, and thereby increases the strain on the Exchequer when it comes to paying compensation for contacts.
This year's Estimate has caused a good deal of understandable comment. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that when dealing with diseases like foot-and-mouth, and fowl pest, it is impossible to know at the beginning of a year how much compensation may have to be paid out during the year, because it is impossible to predict the number of outbreaks. They may vary from sporadic outbreaks to serious epidemics in one part of England or another.
Anyhow, when we put in the original figure of £1 million, it was thought that compensation could not cost us less than £1 million for the current year, but, equally, we hoped that the drastic measures which we were continuing to take would mean that the figure would not rise to that which I am now asking the House to approve.
The industry itself is very conscious of this and has a committee which has
been running an anti-fowl pest campaign and endeavouring to make better known what precautions can be taken. Whereas some understand these things, there are others who are possibly careless about the disposal of carcases of birds which the on their premises, and it is those people rather than the larger units whose carelessness is responsible for the spread of the disease.
Last year there were 1,415, outbreaks as against 1,871 in the previous year. I do not say that with any pride, but the number of outbreaks was less than that of the previous year. However, the average size of the flocks continued to rise, so that, in consequence, the average amount of compensation paid has been higher than for the year before. That is particularly the case with turkeys. The geographical distribution of fowl pest has been similar to that of the previous year. The disease was largely confined to East Anglia, but some large flocks were infected in other parts of the country.
In defence of the turkey breeders I must say that it is more difficult for a turkey owner to suspect the existence of the disease among these birds than it is among ordinary domestic chickens. In some cases the disease may not have been noticed until it has been carried and spread by the turkeys to chickens with which they have had contact. Turkeys can act as carriers and do not always show the same obvious symptoms as ordinary chickens. In the stamping out policy which we have endeavoured to
operate it has been necessary to slaughter flocks which were believed to be contacts. This disease is infectious and spreads easily, but in the last quarter of 1961 the diesease was much less widespread than it had been in the preceding years. The general situation was much better than it had been, but there was a continuation of infection in East Anglia and some other counties.
Local epidemics were largely brought to an end last autumn, but towards the end of November we had a primary case among fowls in Hampshire. Although our veterinary officers carried out very careful investigations, they were unable to find the origin of the infection. Then there was a serious spread of infection within the area and by the beginning of February of this year the disease had involved five other districts in Hampshire. Towards the end of January the disease had spread to a very large laying unit of 36,000 fowls in Wiltshire, and this was the forerunner of the serious epidemic in that county which also affected part of Somerset.
I mention that to show how the disease can be spread from one district to

another. It is, however, easy to lose one's sense of perspective in a matter of this sort. This is a large sum of money—I am not pretending that it is not—and it is distressing to contemplate the large number of slaughtered birds represented by this figure. But our poultry flocks are now immense and their value is also immense, and whether calculated in birds or in compensation this is a small sum when compared with the total value of the flocks. None the less, this is a wasteful disease and whereas many infected birds would not die, their productivity would be seriously reduced.
As long as we have a vast and valuable poultry industry, so must we take some measure to protect it. I have been explaining what we have done over the last few years and this year to give rise to this Supplementary Estimate. What the future will hold is something about which we are always thinking, but we will probably be thinking about it more pertinently after the next few days. It is worth noticing that Scotland and Wales and large areas of west, central and northern England have been kept practically free of the disease as a result of our present policy. That is something which cannot be said of many other countries. For instance, this disease is endemic all over the United States of America.
I was asked what measure of control we had over poultry imported by the United States forces. The arrangements are under the direct control of our veterinary officers and not only is every precaution taken to ensure that all carcases coming into the country are from flocks free from disease at the premises in the U.S.A., but there is scrupulous care in the disposal of swill and offal, and special arrangements are made which are under the control of our veterinary officers. I do not think that we could do any more.

Sir G. Nicholson: Do our veterinary officers inspect the premises in the United States?

Mr. Vane: They do not inspect premises in the United States, but I think that we can trust the certificates. Our control arrangements are not just paper ones. There is control of these birds


and of swill at Holy Loch, which an hon. Member mentioned—

Mr. Peart: Would it not be better if the American forces bought British production to avoid any such risk?

Mr. Vane: It would be very nice if they would, but these are special arrangements, much as those we had in the Forces when the hon. Member and I were abroad at various times during the war, when we were not rationed only to what originated in the country concerned. I know that the Americans have very strong feelings about this, but from the British point of view it might be hoped that we could demonstrate that the British chicken has a better taste.

Mr. Farr: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is a remarkable coincidence that the majority of outbreaks of fowl pest occur in East Anglia and that the majority of American Air Force bases are in East Anglia? Is he satisfied that it is only a remarkable coincidence?

Mr. Vane: I do not believe that there is any evidence to support my hon. Friend's argument. I know that the matter has been carefully looked into. If we felt that there was any sort of connection such as he has suggested, none of us would be quiet about it or allow it to continue. This has been put to us before and investigated and I do not think that there is any evidence to support his contention.
It has been suggested that we pay too much compensation. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyan) made one point in favour of compensation for me when he said that if the compensation were not adequate those who suspected the disease on their farm would not immediately notify it. If we are to control a disease like this, it is vital that there should be the earliest possible notification of every outbreak. If compensation were not adequate—I do not mean over-generous—there would not be the same encouragement to notify every suspected case.
Compensation for commercial birds is assessed according to market prices taken in relation to the development of the birds at the time of slaughter. The assessments are usually made by the Ministry's veterinary officers and independent valuers are called in where the valuation

is disputed, or often where high-quality breeding stock is involved. In default of agreement, there is provision for arbitration.
I believe that that is a fair basis. Further, after the slaughter of stock, whether or not disease has been present, the premises must remain empty for some time. They have to be disinfected under the supervision of our veterinary officers. Some hon. Members suggested that the time was not long enough. We will look into this question and see whether there are any grounds for extending it, but as long as the premises are compulsorily empty, although there may not be any blame attaching to the man whose birds are slaughtered, he cannot carry on his business and there is no compensation for any disturbance of business or loss of income. The compensation is for apparently healthy birds which are compulsorily destroyed because they are suspected as contacts. The diseased birds from the point of infection may not even be his birds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) suggested that there might be compulsory insurance of units over 5,000 birds. This would be attractive to the Treasury, as well as to others, but this will be one of the questions we shall have to consider in the future. It hardly comes into the justification for the Supplementary Estimate which I am asking the House to approve.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) asked us not to be hidebound. He said that, if the Plant Committee suggested any better or different way from what we are now doing, we should not be obstinate. This is probably out of order on this Supplementary Estimate, but I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we are not hidebound. Nobody would be more pleased than we would if we could find ways and means of having more effective control.
It was suggested by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) that special care should be taken over the hygienic conditions at large units. I have had no evidence that the hygienic conditions at large units fall below those existing at smaller units. The reverse may well be the case. If large numbers of birds are kept where the hygienic


conditions are not as good as can be devised, they will be troubled not only by fowl pest, but all sorts of other troubles may assail them.
The hon. Member for Workington asked me further questions about vaccines. We have done considerable research in the matter of vaccines. We have exchanged samples of vaccines developed at Weybridge with Dr. Bankowsky, who was in this country. Hon. Members should bear in mind that, if the aim is to eradicate by slaughter, then research directed to control by vaccine is probably rather less in these circumstances than in circumstances where slaughter would be unrealistic.

Mr. Peart: It should not be.

Mr. Vane: Such resources as we have must be used to the best advantage. We have only limited resources at Weybridge and elsewhere, but I am sure that everyone who has been to Weybridge is proud of what goes on there. Within the limits of our resources we must select certain priorities. We are doing research into vaccines and will continue to do so.

Mr. Peart: I cannot understand the argument. Very little money is required for research into methods of slaughtering birds. No research is required for that. That is a negative policy. A vaccination policy should have been carefully investigated by the Ministry over a long period.

Mr. Vane: We have investigated it. We have probably done nearly as much as many other countries have done, but I could not claim that we have done as much as America. A slaughter policy in the United States, with the aim of total eradication, is quite unrealisable for them. They have, therefore, had to concentrate on a different policy. I could tell the hon. Gentleman a great deal about our research into vaccines. Until a short time ago we had greater hopes than we now have that we could eradicate the disease by slaughter. It has, therefore, probably been wiser to devote more of our research facilities in connection with other diseases. This does not mean that we have done nothing about this disease, but if we have concentrated on vaccines in connection with other diseases in preference

to a vaccine for this disease, it is because we thought that eradication by slaughter was the right policy for fowl pest.
I hope that I have succeeded in convincing hon. Members that this large sum is not the result of any carelessness on the part of the Department, or any laxness in the efforts to control this disease by one method if not by another. We have had a measure of success in containing it in certain districts and even eradicating it in Lancashire. I readily admit that it is a large sum. We should all like to think that this is the last occasion on which the House will ever be asked to approve a sum of this kind for this disease or for any other disease, but, none the less, I claim that it is reasonable this year to ask the House to approve this sum. I hope, too, that when we have the advantage of considering the Plant Committee's report future Estimates will take a rather different form.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: This large Supplementary Estimate is due to other things also. I do not claim to be an agricultural expert. I only farm, and that with two clean boots. What I shall say will be about the Estimate side of the matter. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary rather took the wind out of my sails, because he started by admitting that the basis for estimating this very peculiar matter had been wrong in the past and that the Government would adopt a new basis next year. If he had left it at that, I should not have much to say. However, the hon. Gentleman went on to justify past practice. It is a mistake to repent of one's sins and say at the same time that one has always been innocent, which is what the hon. Gentleman did.
I ask hon. Members to consider the history of this matter. The provision under which this Estimate arises was brought in by Statute in 1950. Very shortly afterwards, in January, 1951, Mr. Tom Williams, as he then was, in reply to a Question—he used the same language in a statement circulated at the time—made it perfectly clear that the slaughtering method was to be
continued so long as there is any reasonable prospect of its achieving its object." … —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th January, 1951: Vol. 483, c. 302.]


The object was the eradication of fowl pest.
We are now in 1962. I share with the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) a certain hesitation or doubt as to how long it takes to convince a Government Department of the need to reconsider what it has been doing in the past. The comparative absence of research into other methods—I say "comparative", but I appreciate what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said about our doing a good deal—is defended on the grounds that this was our main method. I am not an agricultural expert. I merely look at what happened. In 1956 and 1957 there were some very bad outbreaks. In 1960, ten years after the Act and nine years after the statement, the Government at last set up a committee to investigate it.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that it is a pity that we are having this discussion today, because the report is coming out in a few days' time. As I understand our practice, on the day when the spring Supplementary Estimates appear we either have to discuss them or nothing. It is not a question of being kind to the Government or even to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). We have to discuss them. We selected this item because it is a very large figure.

Mr. Peyton: I do not claim that the Opposition have been kind to me. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has challenged me, I will tell him that I was merely paying a tribute as an act of grace to the Opposition for doing now what they ought to have done long ago.

Mr. Mitchison: The answer is that, tribute or no tribute, it is the only thing that we can discuss today—the spring Supplementary Estimates. The hon. Member must not take these things quite so seriously.
The Committee was set up in 1960. If there is any complaint about the choice of the subject, I must say to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, "How were we to know?" He did not tell us that the Committee's report was coming out in a few days' time.

Mr. Vane: I do not want the hon. and learned Gentleman to do me an injustice or the reverse. I think that in answer to Questions my right hon.

Friend said more than once that he hoped this report would be out before the end of the month. As this is going to arouse interest beyond the reasons which have caused us to ask for this Supplementary Estimate this year, I said that it would have been convenient to have discussed the two together.

Mr. Mitchison: I am very glad to hear that. In that case the means of disseminating the information were not very successful, because a number of hon. Members did not know that the report would be out shortly.
That is the 1960 position. The facts on these Estimates show that £4½ million was required in 1959–60, £2½ million in 1960–61, and that in 1961–62, £3½ million will be required. I agreed with the comment that was made, and with the Joint Parliamtary Secretary's own acceptance of a better method of estimating in the future, that it is not right year after year to put down as an estimate of what is required the sum of either £750,000 or £1 million—these are the two that have been popular lately—when in fact experience of the last three years has shown that it is quite insufficient.
It may well be that this is a matter that ought to be covered by insurance. If it is not to be covered by insurance and we are to keep the present legislation—which is all that we can talk about today—I am very glad indeed to know that this will not happen again. That is all that I have to say on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

STATIONERY AND PRINTING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: This Vote leads us to the fascinating subject of paper, governmental paper, paper of all kinds—paper used in disseminating information, paper used in writing and paper used in feeding a peculiar kind of machine to which I shall refer shortly.
The facts are that taking the stationery and printing Vote as a whole there was an increase of about 15 per cent. If we


confine ourselves, as I hope within reason to do, to the fascinating subject of paper, the increase was 34 per cent. and the amount of the increase was £1,891,000—quite a considerable sum.
The question of this Supplementary Estimate was investigated very thoroughly and carefully—and if I may say so respectfully, it was a useful investigation—by the Estimates Committee. I shall quote from the Third Report of the Estimates Committee. I look at some of the questions to get the character of the increase in perspective. In answer to Question 646 the Controller of the Stationery Office described the increase as
exceptional in relation to past years.
He added, in a very cautious spirit:
It is difficult to say, of course, whether this degree of activity"—
that is, paper activity—
… will continue in the future.
In answer to Question 665 he said that there had been no other year
… in which the unforeseen demands have been so high.
So really the Government have been running a sort of riot of paper for this year, a riot for the first time and a very unusual kind of riot. One wants to know what happened.
To try to get at it, we have first to see what is done with paper as between the Stationery Office and the Departments
which use it. Apparently what happens is this. A document, which is referred to
as an Estimates circular, is sent round by the Stationery Office about August. That attracts forecasts from the Government Departments of what they are likely to require, but for some rather mysterious reason, the forecasts are not in financial terms. That was made clear in answer to Question 660. I suppose that it is a sort of outline, sketch or picture of the paper requirements of the Department and is used as a corrective to the Stationery Office's own estimate, which it bases on the consumption for the preceding period for each of the Departments concerned. Therefore, the general picture is that the Stationery Office, at some time about August or a little previously, makes its provisional estimate, shall we call it, based on the previous requirements of the Department,

and this is corrected in the light of the answers to its Estimates circular.
One must not underestimate the importance of paper. We cannot do without it in this House. The amount we leave about and throw into the waste paper baskets must in itself amount to quite a substantial figure. We must concede to the Government of the day the right to use quite a lot of paper. We must, I imagine, agree with the Controller of the Stationery Office who said in effect that policy was hardly ever altered because the result would be an abnormally large use of paper. He said "One cannot have the stationery tail wagging the dog." That was a very nice, happy phrase. But although the stationery tail does not wag the dog, he none the less claimed, in answer to Question 693, that there were occasions when the Controller of the Stationery Office had the last word and put his foot down. He said in effect, "The tail has shifted round a little and there are times when I have to draw the line. "But I think that the conclusion from what he said and from the probabilities of the case is fair enough, that one cannot blame the Stationery Office unless one requires it to use its tail to wag the dog, and this one cannot sensibly do. Accordingly, we must look to the Departments themselves to see what has happened.
Various suggestions were made. The most serious one was that it was all due to the use of what was described as rather sophisticated office machinery. That, I think, is a form of speech which the Greeks used to call meiosis—understatement, to put it in that way. It must have been incredibly complicated office machinery. It is automatic data processing machinery, and, following the initial fashion of the time, it is called in the evidence A.D.P. machinery. Apparently, one not merely buys a piece of machinery but, according to the Controller of the Stationery Office, one buys a whole system. I shall return to this in a few minutes. In the system one has machines which are very hungry brutes for paper. In order to economise—I imagine that it must be done on grounds of economy—one cuts out something or other and in return one uses one or more of these very-hungry brutes when it comes to paper. According to the evidence, these brutes have been so hungry that more paper was required.
Here, I agree entirely with the comments made in the Third Report of the Estimates Committee. In paragraph 20, the Committee says:
Your Committee accept the fact that the use of Automatic Data Processing machinery may well lead to an increase in the amount of paper used, and assume that the Departments and the Treasury took account of this when deciding on its installation in the interests of economy".
I should have assumed so too.
They have difficulty in understanding how the use of this machinery can lead to unforeseen increases in the consumption of paper. If full use of these machines had been properly planned in the first place, there should not have been scope for applying them to new purposes which would consume unforeseen quantities of paper. Your Committee consider that the use of Automatic Data Processing machinery should not have been a contributing factor to the need for the Stationery Office's Supplementary Estimate".
I revert for a moment to the wonderful picture of what happens when it is decided to use the hungry brutes and install the machines. In answer to Question No. 669, the Controller of the Stationery Office said:
The method of control is this. When a department considers a demand for an A.D.P. system, the department itself"—
that is one lot—
usually its own O. &amp; M. Department if it has one "—
that is another lot—
plus the Treasury O. & M. Division "—
that is a third lot—
plus the special Treasury unit which has been set up for this purpose "—
that is a fourth lot—
get together …
What do they do? The Controller tells us that
they consider the problem from all angles over a very long period before they decide first whether an A.D.P. system is desirable and whether it will give economies, and secondly, what particular type of A.D.P. system should be put in.
Then he says that this is one matter for which the Stationery Office has to rely on expert evidence from outside.
Whatever else may be the result of these high level deliberations, I cannot think that the consequent use of paper can be said to be unforeseen after all that examination. I agree entirely with the comment of the Estimates Committee that, whatever the result, the Treasury

might jolly well have known beforehand what was going to happen. There it is.
I look for some further explanation. The Estimates Committee was doing exactly the same, asking question after question, obviously puzzled about what the position was. It was extraordinarily hard to find out from the answers why this unprecedented increase had occurred. I am no nearer an answer after reading all the evidence than I was before. I respectfully agree with the recommendations of the Estimates Committee, to which I shall come later, but I still do not know why this happened. I have only one clue which leads me in a direction which one might, perhaps, have expected.
The worst sinners were the Service Departments. The Service Departments between them accounted for over half the increase. Going a stage further one finds that the old villain, the War Office, if I may call it that respectfully, is the worst sinner of all. Is this all a development of what one remembers of Army forms and Army papers, turned into a terrible nightmare, growing year after year, and for some reason having an enormous break-through this year and producing this extraordinary demand? I hope that the House will allow me to mention my own experience. During the First World War I once commanded a very small unit. I was the only officer in it. I used to return in quadruplicate a list of the officers under my command. It was always myself, never anybody else, but in that list went month after month, always in quadruplicate. We can all remember the sad history of returns about strawberry jam, plum and apple jam or whatever it was, and one begins to wonder whether half the trouble has been caused by the War Office really getting going this time.
One must not be rude to a Government Department, even from these benches, without referring to what it has to say. This matter was mentioned in the evidence, and the only suggestion was that the War Office wanted a bit more technical information and was spending quite a lot of money in distributing books containing technical information. I am all in favour of the highest possible standard of education and knowledge within the Army. One could not object to that, but is it such a new thing? One hopes that the War


Office and other Government Departments have been continually progressing and that the education of the War Office and the soldiery generally has been proceeding steadily without sudden kangaroo-like jumps in the demand for information causing the paper bill to bound upward in a great leap after staying steady for years. I am still puzzled. What is the explanation?
The question which the Estimates Committee kept putting in one form or another and to which it suggested many answers, receiving little encouragement, was: Why this unprecedented increase this year in the demand for paper? Many instances were given but they were all small matters which between them would not have added up to anything like the total figure in this case. What is the explanation? Is it that the Treasury has not allowed sufficiently for the hungry brutes? Is it that the War Office has got the bit between its teeth and at long last has had its fill of Army forms to a quite unprecedented extent? What else is it?
Among other things, it was suggested that the increase may have had something to do with stocking after the printing dispute in 1959. I can only say that no figures were given. The only figure which was suggested was comparatively valueless because there was nothing to compare it with, and it does not sound to me as if that can be the explanation, although it may be a minor contributory factor.
For all those reasons, I am full of curiosity, as was the Estimates Committee, about this remarkable increase, and I hope that our curiosity today will be better satisfied than was the Estimates Committee's curiosity when it inquired into the matter.
The Committee's recommendations amount to what is really a very simple matter; that the Departments, when telling the Stationery Office of their requirements, should be a bit more careful about them and should produce a more realistic and correct estimate of what they require.

6.20 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) made

the sort of amusing, learned and erudite speech we expect of him. However, he touched on only a part of the problem. The problem, as I see it, is that the Stationery Office is poor but honest and brings the inevitable shame on its relations by having to have Supplementary Estimates. The question facing the House is how this is to be prevented.
It has been suggested that the Stationery Office should not be just an agency department but that the various Departments should pay in their own estimates for the stationery they order. That is an attractive idea, but it was gone into by the Hutchison Committee which rejected the suggestion for a good reason, namely, that the Stationery Office exercises a restraining influence over the Departments. We have been told how, for example, the Departments order perhaps an extravagant sort of pamphlet or document and how the Stationery Office persuades them to have a more economical type, perhaps on not as good paper or with fewer colours and illustrations.
I do not believe that there is any salvation to be sought in that suggestion, for I am left with the impression that it is best that the Stationery Office should remain an agency department. It is clear that in the big estimates of the large spending Departments these relatively small sums for stationery and printing would tend to get less attention and escape supervision. The real answer is that debates like the one we are having now act as a restraining influence. Where there has been extravagance—and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering exaggerated a little, because although there has been a certain amount, not all of this Supplementary Estimate represents extravagance—it must be checked by the influence of the House of Commons, and for that reason I welcome this debate.
Some of the increase takes place unavoidably. For instance, when the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance changed the title of the National Assistance Board it meant the re-printing of I do not know how many millions of documents. Hon. Members may describe that as unnecessary, but it was a policy decision of the Government for which the Stationery Office cannot be specifically blamed. I rose to put in


a good word for the Stationery Office, which I regard as an admirably conducted Department.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I am sure that hon. Members will not disagree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), for I am certain that the Stationery Office stands charged with the sins of other people. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has already with great skill taken the guts out of the Estimates Committee's Report and evidence and I shall not attempt to follow him in detail, except to say that few hon. Members feel particularly friendly when the subject of Government paper comes up these days.
We all know that there is far too much of it, a good deal is ill-phrased and much of it is rude. Very often it is repeated time without number. I remember that just after the war a Government Department got intensely interested in the livestock at my house. It is called a farm although I do not have a farm or land. I received certain forms and I returned them religiously quarter after quarter saying that the premises contained one female dog and a torn cat. This did not deter the Department concerned from continuing its inquiries at regular intervals—until I said that if it was so interested I would take it upon myself to inform the Minister direct. After that the communications ceased.
I believe that there is a vast multiplication of forms which grossly irritate the public. One cannot get into hospital now without filling in a tremendous number of documents. I wish we could get Ministers personally interested in this subject to impose on their Departments some self-denying ordinance in the way they satisfy their almost unappeasable appetite for information which borders on inquisitiveness to an intolerable extent.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering properly described the machines about which he spoke as "hungry brutes", and I remind hon. Members of what was said in the Third Report from the Estimates Committee in reply to Question 667 by my hon.

Friend the Member for Taunton
(Mr. du Cann). The answer was:
Unfortunately, in the case of these A.D.P. systems there have been so many occasions when the resulting use of paper, also magnetic tape, has been quite unexpected, either by the department or by the Treasury O. and M. Division or the special unit which deals with these things.
That seems somewhat surprising—that this could not be solved by the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury and the "special unit which deals with these things"—because if they have any justification in life this is the sort of thing one would reasonably anticipate from them.
We are told that the Post Office increase was £150,000 on a base of £700,000. This indicates a general sort of untidiness and messiness which hardly persuades one to believe that Government Departments run their affairs on very businesslike lines. The Committee called attention—and this was dealt with in evidence—to the increase in departmental forms and circulars and, in answer to Question 705, it stated:
… the original estimate there was £845,000, and the revised estimate is £950,000. Then Defence: the original estimate was £910,000 for printing and the revised estimate is £1,125,000—which is a substantial increase. Then Revenue and Civil Departments: the original estimate was £2,476,000, and the revised estimate is £2,740,000.
It is unfortunate that this should have become so much a matter of habit.
Then we have the large increase on Press advertisements—from £175,000 to more than £225,000. It is not unfair to remind the Government that they have properly asked the public to economise—to cut down on spending—and that they are constantly, with every justification, exhorting industry to be efficient. Is it not reasonable that, in this sphere, the Government should set a good example? The figures before us seem to constitute a very bad one indeed.

6.29 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: There are several points I wish to raise, two of them immediately relevant to the working of the Stationery Office, the first being in connection with the additional sum for salaries. I hope that this additional Estimate of £137,000 will enable


Government publications to be despatched promptly to the public when they write to ask for them.
My hon. Friend will recollect that I raised this matter with him in correspondence. I wrote before Christmas about a delay of a week or ten days and my hon. Friend assured me that this was due to the Christmas season and that the position would be all right after Christmas. I sent a further complaint to my right hon. Friend in the New Year from the same correspondent, and he then suggested that my correspondent should become a regular subscriber. My correspondent has done so, but I regret to say that I have given up in despair writing to my right hon. Friend, for all recent reports show that even in the case of a regular subscriber it may take a week to get a publication which is asked for. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tighten up the procedure in this respect.
Another point which interests me very much and to which attention does not seem to have been paid is that the largest proportionate increase in the Supplementary Estimates is in regard to Press advertisements. This is an extraordinary increase for a Supplementary Estimate—from £535,000 to £800,000. This is a real bonanza of £265,000 to Mr. Thomson and Mr. King and the Press lords, I imagine. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can say something about that—whether it represents a change in policy, what the main cause of it is, and so forth—because it is a very substantial increase.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend can say something on the subject of Acts of Parliament going out of print. This is a matter which has engaged my interest over a number of years since it came to my notice that the Criminal Lunatic Act, 1884, which was then in vogue—it deprived citizens of their liberty—could not be obtained at the Stationery Office. One appreciates that it is probably for reasons of economy that this sort of thing happens, but in relation to the gigantic sums with which we are dealing in the Supplementary Estimates £4 million seems a very small sum indeed which might be devoted to keeping Acts of Parliament in print so that members of the public may obtain them and not have

to be offered, as I understand they are at the moment, photostat copies which may cost them up to £1 each. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to deal with these points.

6.33 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I should like to say two things to start with. First, we do not often discuss the Stationery Office in this House, and perhaps we sometimes take almost too much for granted the work that it does. Without the work of the Stationery Office the Government machine could not be carried on—I do not mean just the party aspects; I refer here to the whole machine of public administration—nor could our affairs in this House, as will be appreciated when we realise the pressure under which the Stationery Office often is, not least at the start of a Session when Ministers of whatever Government require successive prints of Bills, often at short notice. Also, at this time the burden is particularly heavy in respect of Standing Committee work. I have in mind the sets of Amendments that have to be reprinted, often two or three times during a week. I consider that the Government and the House are extremely well served by the Stationery Office.
Having been Financial Secretary for some time, I might add that I am always glad to realise the very good relations which exist between the Stationery Office and the printing industry. It is fair to say that the relations between the Stationery Office and the outside world are particularly good.

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I may be allowed to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Sir E. Boyle: I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
As we have the pleasure of the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) and a number of other members of the Estimates Committee, I should like to say that I think they have done valuable work. I feel that they were right to choose this Supplementary Estimate for examination. I tell the House frankly that both the Treasury and the Stationery Office were very glad that the subject should be thoroughly examined by the Estimates Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham made a very fair speech. He gallantly came to the rescue of the Stationery Office in a letter which he sent to the Daily Mail recently, a gesture which is very much appreciated indeed.
As my hon. Friend has said, this Estimate is of an unusual kind. It is built up on the basis of records of past expenditure for each Department, modified by known variations in demand and price trends and any other factors which are relevant. There are always unforeseen demands from Departments. That is inevitable. Marginal variations up or down can usually' be accommodated within the framework of an Estimate catering for the needs of some sixty Departments, and it would be impossible to insist on rigid allocations. All demands coming to the Stationery Office are certified by responsible officers in the individual departments, and I think that administration should not be held up for lack of provision on the Stationery Office Vote.
As a rule the methods of estimating have proved satisfactory. The increase in demands on the Stationery Office which occurred in 1961–62, however, was exceptionally heavy and widespread, and its main weight was not felt until after the Estimate had been submitted. On the evidence available at the time—this has been rechecked very carefully—there would have been no justification for submitting a substantially higher Estimate at the time the original Estimate was submitted for 1961–62.
This upsurge in demand was spread very widely over defence, civil and repayment services, and it was impossible to contain the effect of this large degree of variation in the usual way. At the end of the financial year 1960–61 the rate of issue of paper stocks made necessary heavy additional purchases to meet what was a growing weight of demand. The replenishment of depleted departmental stocks, which was a long-term effect of the printing dispute in 1959, was also partly responsible for the Supplementary Estimate, but, what is more important for estimating purposes, it also masked for a time the growth in the general level of demand for paper. One cannot quantify this, but the complex aftermath of the stoppage caused delays in deliveries, particularly of envelopes,

which were aggravated by the growing weight of demand.
The increases in departmental demands for paper, printing, binding and office supplies were due to a number of causes which I should like briefly to itemise. First of all, there was a general heightening of the level of departmental activity. This was in connection, first, with social legislation. Here I would instance—I think it is a very good example—the graduated pensions scheme introduced in April last year. This has given rise as it has developed to a good deal of unforeseen expenditure on paper, printing and office equipment.
Here I would say one thing to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I agree with him that it is important that the Government should not be wasteful in their use of paper and that unnecessary forms should not be sent. On the other hand, I am sure that he would be the first to agree that there are a good many occasions during the year when hon. Members on both sides of the House complain that Government policies are not being sufficiently publicised.

Mr. Peyton: I should like to get the nature of my complaint absolutely clear to my hon. Friend. It is not a question of their not being sufficiently publicised. It is that the Government, when they commit themselves to paper, do so in most intolerable jargon which is divorced from clarity.

Sir E. Boyle: That is another point. A great many people are critical of the drafting of both Government publications and Government speeches at the moment. For the purpose of this debate I am concerning myself simply with the quantity of paper issued. One has to remember the number of occasions on which hon. Members on both sides of the House say how important it is that some complicated piece of new legislation should be adequately explained to the public.

Sir Spencer Summers: My hon. Friend said that the graduated pensions scheme brought a great demand for paper which was unforeseen. He then went on to talk about something quite different. It is still not clear from what he said why the demand was unforeseen.

Sir E. Boyle: I was just about to explain that. I have some information from the Ministry of
Pensions which, I think, is precisely relevant to that point. Certain Ministry of Pensions standard forms, of which 240 million were ordered in 1960, increased in quantity to no less than 308 million in 1961. This was due in part to the graduated pensions scheme. Many existing forms had to be adapted and reprinted to take account of the new scale of contributions. I do not believe that the full extent
of these changes could have been foreseen by the Department. But there is the further point that no fewer than 11 million explanatory leaflets were produced at short notice following Parliamentary discussion about lack of information. That was during the course of the financial year after the original Estimate had been submitted.
There have also been repercussions on other Departments. For example, 27,000 wallets were issued for the Inland Revenue in connection with the scheme. There has been a good deal of unforeseen expenditure on office machinery—for enveloping, numbering, micro-filming and so on—all of which has resulted from the introduction of the new graduated pensions scheme.
The point that I was making to my hon. Friend was that much of this arose during the course of the financial year after the original Estimate had been submitted, and, having looked at the evidence, I do not think it would have been possible for the Ministry of Pensions to have foreseen that all these demands were likely to arise out of the introduction of this very big and important new piece of legislation.

Sir S. Summers: Does what my hon. Friend has said mean that the Inland Revenue is the only Department which is issued with wallets?

Sir E. Boyle: I should require notice of that question. I have just cited that as an example.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to remind him that in these very Estimates one of the causes for the Supply Estimates was a requirement for two attache cases for each inspector engaged in testing old cars? That had not been foreseen.

Sir E. Boyle: My answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point must be "touché".
I come now to the next cause of the increases, and this is development in the Service Departments which led to heavily increased demands for technical manuals. In the War Office alone there has been a 50 per cent. increase since 1960 in the range of manuals relating to electrical and mechanical engineering services. The expansion of War Office works services has entailed extra demand. As technical developments advance there is bound to be a need for new technical manuals of this kind. That is inevitable. However, I can tell the House that, having seen the figures, I will discuss with my right hon. and hon. Friends concerned to ascertain whether we can improve our internal procedures for making sure that the Stationery Office has adequate advance notice of when demands are likely to be made on it in connection with the printing of new manuals. I think this is one part of our internal Government machinery to which we could properly attend.
The next cause of the increase I would put under the general heading of policy developments in Departments, for example the decision in the Inland Revenue, following criticisms by the Estimates Committee, to issue additional explanatory material to the public and to revise and improve the many forms and pamphlets already in use. I am sure that the House will recall the many discussions that we have had on Schedule A and the demand, supported on all sides of the House, for a new leaflet on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not here, but I have said this to him often and I do not think he will resent it if I repeat it in his absence. I think that, as back-benchers go, my hon. Friend does his full share in adding to the total weight of Government expenditure taking one year with another when one thinks of the various causes which he espouses from time to time.
Again, there has been the extension of the Ministry of Transport vehicle testing scheme, and the traffic and road programme generally, which has almost doubled the Ministry of Transport's expenditure on paper, printing and binding in two years. There is also the development of the major automatic data


processing projects—the A.D.P. projects—and office mechanisation generally, which has increased to an unforeseen extent the demand for forms and also for magnetic tapes. The rapidly growing use of office photo-copying devices, a field in which recently there has been much technical development, has heavily increased the demand for expensive photo printing papers and for machines and accessories, and there has been a general expansion of the use of office reproduction machines.
This is a difficult matter on which to pronounce, but we all know, when one has these good, high-grade, modern photo-copying devices, that while they save manpower it is tempting to make just that extra marginal use of them to duplicate letters or documents. If one considers the last year or two, the House of Commons has made its full share of the increased use of copying machines.
Paragraph 20 of the Report of the Estimates Committee criticised the unforeseen increase in the consumption of paper arising from the use of A.D.P. machinery on the ground that this showed a lack of planning by Departments and the Treasury. I wish to deal with this point specially, because the evidence given before the Committee mentioned the contribution of A.D.P. systems to the Supplementary Estimate and it was a point on which the Estimates Committee showed particular interest.
I do not think that it was intended to single out A.D.P. systems as the major factor for comment in the increased demands of Departments, nor are unforeseen demands arising from A.D.P. installations entirely for paper. Magnetic tapes and punched cards are also important and additional paper expenditure in this connection arises probably from improvement of related procedures as well as from A.D.P. processes themselves.
There have been considerable unforeseen demands for magnetic tape. The translation of the Army pay regulations into instructions for a computer has proved to be much more complicated than we expected. It is now believed to be the most complex system in operation on a computer anywhere. This complexity has led to the greater use of magnetic tapes by the Royal Army

Pay Corps computer, although most of the increase arises from provision in the current financial year of tapes that were planned for supply during the next financial year. To some extent, therefore, this is merely anticipation of expenditure. There have also been increased demands for tape for the analysis on the same computer of the 1961 census of population by the Registrar-General.
The Estimates Committee also expressed the view that the planning of installations should have left no scope for expansion. I venture to doubt the conclusion of the Estimates Committee, because it would inevitably lead to greater expenditure, not only because Government activity continuously increases as a result of the decisions of Parliament, but also because experience of these A.D.P. installations commonly enables Departments to improve their methods by making greater use of them. Each installation is, I believe, justified on grounds of efficiency and economy. If it causes greater expenditure on paper and other supplies, it also saves staff and time.
I can give the following figures, which are the best I have been able to obtain. The computers already installed are expected to produce average net direct savings in money of the order of £450,000 a year.

Sir S. Summers: My hon. Friend has evidently misread the comment to which he has referred. The Committee was not at all averse to installing machinery with an element of expansion contemplated. What the Committee took exception to was the failure to provide in the Estimates for the paper that that expansion would require.

Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry if I have mistaken the point of the Committee's Report. My whole aim has been to give some of the reasons why the Supplementary Estimate was necessary. Certainly, I take the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Sir G. Nicholson: On computers—although I am sure that this will be out of order—may I remind my hon. Friend that it is a question of how many shifts are worked whether the computer pays? There is danger that not enough shifts are worked.

Sir E. Boyle: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on the subject. If it is not out of order, I will refer to the reference to this subject in paragraph 20 of the Report. My hon. Friend is rather harking back to the Sixth Report of the Estimates Committee for the Session 1960–61, in which the same point was raised. My hon. Friend was a member of the Committee on both occasions.
I assure my hon. Friend that it is not necessary to run computers more than two shifts to make them pay. Computers in use in Government offices and running between 40 and 60 hours a week are bringing a good commercial return on the investment. Longer hours may bring a modest additional profit, but in these circumstances many of the costs rise and there is considerable doubt as to the real advantage of longer hours.
Unless there are operational or other special reasons, it is not Government policy to run computers in Government offices for more than two shifts a day. This will make it possible to install computers on a sound economic basis while paying due regard at the same time to the interest of the office staff and also leaving spare capacity as an insurance against breakdown or other emergencies. This is an important point. Spare capacity is as important in the realm of computers as when one considers the rate of general taxation in peacetime.
I believe that much of the departmental activity reflected generally in the demand for A.D.P. systems is, in the broadest sense, productive of economies and generally in the national interest. Additional expenditure falling on the Stationery Office Vote is often a comparatively minor facet of much larger economies or increases in efficiency elsewhere. Even so, it is desirable and important that the Stationery Office should receive adequate warning about the potential growth of demands on its services. The evidence suggests—and I am entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury—that this has not always been provided, as emphasised, possibly, in the Comptroller's recent evidence before the Estimates Committee. Departments sometimes find genuine difficulty in estimating it themselves. Sometimes, increased expenditure of this kind is generally unforeseeable, but the importance of more

accurate forecasting as far as is practicable without undue elaboration will certainly be stressed to Departments before the preparation of the next Estimates.
In general, therefore, I should like the Estimates Committee to feel that in the Treasury and in the Stationery Office we have taken full note of the points made by the Committee. A number of useful and valuable suggestions were made in the Report. There were certain special reasons for the size of the Supplementary Estimate. Perhaps the result of all this is to bring home to all of us exactly how important a part the Stationery Office is of our total Government machinery and how important it is that everybody should realise the demands that we make upon it and that we should strive to combine efficiency with reasonable economy in the use of its services.
Finally, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson), I know that there has been a difficulty about reprints of Bills. If my hon. Friend would like to discuss the question with me some time as well as the matters on which he has been corresponding, he knows, I am sure, that I would be pleased to have a talk with him.

Question put and agreed to.

CARLISLE STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am sorry that the time will be so limited. This was the fascinating case of virement, depending on the price of beer and the price of port in pubs in the Carlisle State Management District. What appears to have happened was that when more had to be paid to the Customs and Excise those operating the scheme showed it one way, and when they got it back from the customer they showed it another way, with the net result that there was produced what was rightly described by the Treasury witness as a "misleading" form of Estimates.
All I need say today, now that we are so near the close of these debates, is that there were distinct signs of repentance, because at the end of the day, on the issue of whether it is appropriate to have this kind of cash account in this form, where the expenditure is voted by subheads of a trading account with, on the other side, the revenue coming in as appropriations in aid or extra Exchequer receipts if they exceed it, my doubt is whether this is a sensible way of dealing with a trading concern.
Later, the Treasury witness agreed that this was a point made by the Plowden
Committee which had been put to the Estimates Sub-Committee and to the Public Accounts Committee when they made recommendations for the change in Estimates. He added
we would try to change those cases where they were misleading, and this is one which I hope in the process of time we will get round to changing.
That was a little misplaced.
This is an urgent matter. Beer and port are being bought and sold in the Carlisle State Management District and, according to the Treasury witness, the facts of the matter—the resulting trade balance—are being concealed from the House by a misleading form of Estimate. I trust that the Treasury in this respect will get a move on and clarify the position about beer and port in the Carlisle State Management District as soon as may be, and not just when the Department gets round to it.
I sit down because I cannot help seeing the bon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), who spoke so eloquently and with such experience on these matters in the Estimates Committee, about to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Sir G. Nicholson: I am so deeply moved by the horn. and learned Member's eloquence that I am speechless.

6.57 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: I am pleased to have the opportunity, even in the two minutes remaining at the end of this debate, to say something about the feelings expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Although we have had a good deal of discussion of the scheme from an ideological viewpoint, we never made very much of the accounts and we

rather shied at them during all our discussions.
One point about the accounts that mystifies me is the amounts in the Estimate as compared with the profit and loss account of the scheme. I have time to mention only one aspect, and that is the question of licences and duties. We have an additional Estimate of £25,000, but the whole licence duties on the profit and loss account come to only £1,650. No doubt, there is a reason for this, but I do not understand it.
In the half minute that remains, I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary whether any further plans have been made for the future of the scheme. This was left in the air after our recant discussions. We understood that a further committee was examining the scheme. Is that committee still sitting, and is it likely to come to any conclusions?

6.58 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): To reply briefly, I take note of what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said about the urgent matter of reorganising the accounts. It is clear from the trading accounts exactly how much money is made by this concern throughout the year. Whether it is right for a trading concern to have its moneys for its operations voted by Parliament as a Supply service is a technical matter on which there can be great dispute and on which, in half a minute, I cannot enter.
Nor can I give my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson), who, not unnaturally, takes a close interest in the experiment, the answer to his question, because it is a little longer even than I can compress into a quarter of a minute. I must, therefore, sit down before I am out of order.

Question put and agreed to.

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith, with respect to each of the remaining Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply but not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this


House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fourth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Sixth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Seventh Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eighth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Ninth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question.
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Tenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:

SUPPLY [15th March]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1962–63

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY

1. That a sum, not exceeding £133,080,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY AND CADET FORCES

2. That a sum, not exceeding £19,990,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 240,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 233,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 225,000, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

VOTE 8. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS

3. That a sum, not exceeding £48,300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

4. That a sum, not exceeding £9,930,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

5. That a sum, not exceeding £34,100,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1963.

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

6. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1963.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62

7. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1962, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

Schedule



Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid



£
£


Vote




1. Pay, etc., of the Army
4,000,000
320,000


2. Reserve Forces, Territorial and Cadet Forces
Cr. 730,000
*−370,000


3. War Office
250,000
—


4. Civilians
6,700,000
—


5. Movements
1,820,000
330,000


6. Supplies, etc.
2,900,000
*−150,000


7. Stores
Cr.4,160,000
2,110,000


8. Works, Buildings and Lands
Cr.6,280,000
*−470,000


10. Non-Effective Services
500,000
—


11. Additional Married Quarters
—
*−527,000


Total, Army (Supplementary), 1961–62 £
5,000,000
1,243,000


* Deficit.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1962–63

8. That a sum, not exceeding £5,200000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963.

WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE 1962–63

9. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, for expenditure incurred by the War Office on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service, and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963.

SUPPLY [8th March]

ARMY ESTIMATES. 1962–63

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 252,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

SUPPLY [12th March]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1962–63

VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 154,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

SUPPLY [14th March]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1962–63

VOTE A. NUMBERS

That 100,000 Officers, Seamen and Juniors and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine establishments, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.

Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [19th March]

Resolutions reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1961, the sum of £24,359 8s. 9d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, the sum of £104,300,922 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, the sum of £2,248,018,703 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir E. Boyle.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)

Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-two and one thousand nine hundred and sixty-three, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.4 p.m.

Lord Balniel: I think that it would be most useful to assist the House in giving consideration to the Bill if I outlined as briefly as I can something of the history which has led to the introduction of this Bill.
As long ago as 1894 a book was written which was to revolutionise the outlook of town planning in this country and abroad. The book was "Garden Cities of Tomorrow" and was written by the late Sir Ebenezer Howard. In 1903, in order to put into practice the principles which were enunciated in that book, the late Sir Ebenezer Howard formed his Garden City Company Limited, of which, incidentally, the president was the late Lord Salisbury, and one of the most prominent members was a former Member for Hertford, Mr. A. J. Balfour.
The company acquired some 5,000 acres of freehold land in a rural part of Hertfordshire in the parish of Letch-worth. The purpose of the company was to build a garden city in Letchworth, and ultimately this garden city, which


won international esteem, was built. A sister foundation, Welwyn Garden City, lying within my own constituency, followed, and later Letchworth Garden City was to become the forerunner of the new towns built since the war, except that they were built with public finance as opposed to private finance.
The foundation of the company rested on two basic principles, first that the town was to be created for the benefit of the community itself; and the second, almost a consequential, principle was that the investors should receive only a limited return and that any increment or profit over that limited return should be used for the benefit of the town itself and of the townspeople. The company, until very recently, adhered, both by its method of development and by the written articles of association, firmly to these two principles. In developing the town, it has retained the freehold intact so as to preserve unity of development, so as to preserve the integrity of the town, and so as to provide amenities which in a whole town's development cannot easily be provided when there is multiple ownership.
But the actual building development has taken place on the leasehold system, and when encouraging business people to come and settle and build in Letchworth Garden City, and in encouraging private individuals to come and settle and build in Letchworth Garden City, it has always been made clear that the leases, when they were renewed or extended, were to be assessed only at their site value, that is, excluding the value of any property built on the land. It was on this understanding that businesses and individuals were encouraged to come to Letchworth, and it was on this understanding that they built in Letchworth.
Also, in adhering to this principle which I have just mentioned, that the investors should receive only a limited return for their investments, it was written into the articles of association that there should be a limitation of dividend of 5 per cent.; and it was also written into the articles of association that there should be an obligation to apply, in the words of the article,
any balance of profit after such payment as aforesaid"—

that is, the 5 per cent.—
to any purpose which the Company or its Directors may deem for the benefit directly or indirectly of the town or its inhabitants.
So here one had a picture of how the dividends were to be limited to 5 per cent. and any profit over that 5 per cent. should be applied for the benefit of the townspeople themselves. Really, what they were doing by limiting this dividend to 5 per cent. was trying to create the concept of this company as a trustee for the inhabitants—and not as a speculative landlord.
Also the articles of association looked forward to the time when development shall cease, when the assets shall be distributed, and the company shall be wound up. The articles of association lay down that, first, the capital shall be repaid to the investors and then a bonus dividend not exceeding 10 per cent. shall be paid to the investors, but that anything else shall be ploughed back for the benefit of the townspeople or of the town itself.
It has been the very bedrock of this company's existence, it has been inherent throughout its existence since its foundation in 1903, that when development ceased, when it was wound up, this freehold, kept intact from its very earliest day, should be transferred to a public body.
A Bill somewhat of this nature would have been introduced or presented to the House even if the events of the past few months or years had not taken place. This assumption that the freehold of a town should pass to a public body acting as a trustee for the community has been absolutely basic to the existence of this company since 1903. Perhaps here I should quote as an example a resolution which still exists, passed by the company on 15th September, 1949.
It reads:
That the stockholders approve in principle the ultimate transfer when the development of Letchworth is substantially completed, on the Company's undertaking to the local authority or other suitable public body, subject to satisfactory terms being then agreed.
This concept of transferring a town when substantially completed to a local authority was, of course, then following the provisions of the New Towns Act, 1946. But it is no longer Government policy that whole towns should be owned


by local authorities, and this is not proposed in this Bill. What is proposed is that the transfer should take place to a corporation analogous to corporations which we set up only three years ago for the running of new towns.
From 1903 to 1956, in developing the town, the company adhered to these principles. People were induced to spend money on their leaseholds in the knowledge that the freeholders were limited to a return of 5 per cent. There was no inducement at all to the company to rack rent their properties. The lessees must have spent many thousands of pounds in the clear understanding that their leases would be renewed, having regard only to the value of the site clear of any buildings.
Then about this time a series of events took place which made the company vulnerable
to take-over bids and, rightly or wrongly, in order to defeat a particular take-over bid, the company removed the limitation of 5 per cent. on dividend. This obviously made the company a great deal more attractive to the shareholders, and it resulted in that take-over bid being resisted. But it also made the company a great deal more attractive to subsequent take-over attempts.
This change—the removal of limitation on dividend—would have been undreamed of in earlier years. It was a departure from the principles of the company. Also it was legally impossible until the passing of the Companies Act in 1947, because until then a court order would have been required before any change in the articles of association could have been made. We therefore have the picture of a situation where this House, by its own legislation, made this company vulnerable to take-over bids, and in
August, 1960, speculation began to take place. Ultimately the voting control of First Garden City Limited passed to The Hotel York Limited. That company, in gaining voting control of the company, gave a clear undertaking.
In a letter from the chairman of The Hotel York Limited, dated 19th November, 1960, it was stated that:
In the event of the offer being unconditional it would be the intention of York, of which I and my family are the controlling shareholders, to ensure the future of Letch-worth as a unified estate in accordance with

the principles upon which the town has been developed since its foundation by your Company in 1903.
This was a very clear and very definite undertaking which must have had a substantial influence on the shareholders.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who signed that letter?

Lord Balniel: The chairman of The Hotel York Limited.
But it became clear very soon that the company under its new control was abandoning the principles upon which the town had been founded and upon which it had been managed. Urgent action was necessary if the unity of the town was to be preserved and the interests of the leaseholders were to be protected. Letchworth District Council in July, 1961, gave notice to the public in the national and the local Press of its intention to promote a Bill, and it gave an indication of what the contents of the Bill would be.
The purpose of this Bill is to vest the estate in a public body. This is in no way a doctrinaire argument between public ownership and private ownership. The purpose of the Bill is to honour and give effect to the declared intention of the company which has been relied upon by thousands of leaseholders. Let me be quite frank. The purpose of the Bill is also to frustrate the efforts of those who are now seeking to glean a rich harvest from the townspeople by dishonouring the intentions of the company.
The Hotel York Limited has acquired a controlling interest in First Garden City Limited, but when one acquires a controlling interest in any concern, and more particularly when one obtains almost a monopoly control of property involving 25,000 people, surely one also assumes the obligations, responsibilities and duties of that body. In spite of the undertaking which was given, freeholds have been sold and selected lessees have been offered the freehold reversion of their properties at prices based on the assumption that the lessee's improvements belong to the freeholder.
The Bill has the unanimous support of all political parties in Letchworth. I believe, and I speak from my knowledge as a Member for one of the Hertfordshire constituencies, that it also has the


overwhelming support of most of the population in Letchworth.
I think that I should now turn to the most important provisions of the Bill. It establishes a corporation, somewhat similar to the corporations which have been established to run the new towns. The corporation will acquire the assets of the company and fair compensation will be paid. The corporation will be bound to manage the estate as a unified estate in accord with the principles on which the company was founded.
Part I is fairly straightforward. Clauses 1 to 4 give the title, the incorporation of the Land Clauses Acts in so far as they apply and the interpretation of various phrases. Part II lays down the method by which the corporation shall be established for the management of Letchworth Garden City and also its constitution.
Clauses 5 and 6 create a public authority, to be known as the Letchworth Garden City Corporation, composed of six members—four of whom shall be appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, one by the county council and one by the district council. Clauses 7 to 10 contain the detailed provisions for the membership of the corporation.
With Clause 11 we come to a very important part of the Bill. It lays down the objects of the corporation. The first paragraph gives the corporation powers analogous to those given to the Commission set up under the new Towns Act, 1959. The second paragraph provides that the corporation shall be guided by the same principles as those which animated the original company—the first being that the town shall be managed as a unit and the second that in the renewal of ground leases regard shall be had only to the site value clear of any buildings; in other words, that the benefit of improved values shall go to the lessees.
Part III provides for the transfer of the undertaking, which, if the Bill is acceptable to the House, will take place on 1st January, 1963. Clause 15 determines the method of compensation. It lays down that if agreement cannot be reached between the corporation and the company a sum shall be paid, determined by the Lands Tribunal, as if the

estate were sold in the open market between a willing seller and a willing buyer, on the basis that the estate is to be valued as an entity and managed in accordance with the principles followed by the company since 1903.
This method of valuation is crucial to the Bill. It was on this basis that Hotel York Limited obtained control of the company, and if it were the intention of Hotel York Limited to honour the undertaking which it gave in gaining control this basis of valuation must surely be acceptable to it. I do not deny that there could be an alternative method of valuation—the break-up valuation of the estate—which could have been used, but since, in winning the confidence of the shareholders, the company disclaimed the intention of breaking up the estate, it would be unreasonable to use that basis of valuation for compensation.
Clause 16 makes the corporation responsible for acquiring what are called the "included interests". These are those parts of Letchworth Garden City which have been sold since 20th July, 1961. I appreciate that the Clause has caused some concern to some of my hon. Friends, and I agree that the House should be most zealous in examining retrospective legislation of any kind. The 20th July, 1961, was the date on which the urban district council formally gave notice that it intended to promote the Bill, and also announced the Bill's intentions. Any sale which has taken place since that date—and there have been very few—has taken place in the clear and certain knowledge that it would be brought within the scope of the Bill.
I understand the worries of my hon. Friends, but I think that they will understand that some protection of this kind was necessary; otherwise it would have been possible for the freeholder to sell off the entirety of the estate, either while the Bill was being prepared or while it was passing through Parliament.
The other important Clauses are the financial ones, the most important of which would appear to be Clause 26, which gives the corporation power to borrow, in the open market, money for the running of the town and to compensate the company. Clause 29 gives the local authorities power to borrow money in order to make loans to the corporation, and Clause 32 gives the


corporation power to precept the local authorities in the event of there being a deficiency in the running of management costs in the town.
I apologise for having wearied the House for a long time in introducing the Bill. Its history is rather long and intricate, and it contains 42 Clauses some of which are fairly complex. But although the history is long and intricate and the Bill itself is rather complicated, its purpose is very simple. Its purpose is to save a noble ideal which has been sustained for sixty years, which has developed a flourishing town of 25,000 people, and has brought a considerable measure of happiness and contentment to the townspeople. The Bill seeks to prevent that noble ideal from being smashed by purely commercial considerations. The purpose of the Bill is to honour the undertakings given by the company, time and time again in the past sixty years, and to protect the interests of thousands of leaseholders who have relied upon those undertakings.
I commend the Bill to the House, in the belief that it has the support of the overwhelming mass of the population of Letchworth Garden City and in the hope that the House will not today stand aside and allow a noble ideal to be destroyed. In that hope and with that belief I commend the Bill to the House for Second Reading.

7.28 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: After the speech of the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) there is very little I need say. I shall not detain the House for many minutes. First, I congratulate the noble Lord upon the lucid way in which he presented his case. It is true that we are not discussing any issue involving the merits of public ownership v. private ownership. We are thinking in terms of the benefit of unified ownership of this large area of land on which 25,000 people have built their homes and 100 factories have been built so that the people shall work in them.
The benefits are of two types. There is obviously the economic aspect, so well put by the noble Lord—the future benefit of the town as a whole—but there is a second benefit which is just as

important, namely, the method of town planning which is achieved by this technique.
It is true that since the war this principle has been upheld, both in urban redevelopment schemes and in the creation of our new towns. The only monopoly that we are considering is a monopoly specifically created by a large group of people who gradually went to Letchworth and took advantage of the promise made to settle there.
The second thing we may consider is the destruction of this communal monopoly—if I may use that term—and its replacement by a private monopoly of the land of the entire town. This private monopoly has already shown its intention of placing no limit to its desire to exploit any advantage it has.
The third point must influence us, but
it has been dealt with already by the noble Lord. It is that, when the takeover bid was made, a specific promise was given that there should be no departure from the original intention, dating back to 1903. The noble Lord did not go into detail, but I will take a few moments to recall what has happened within the last seven or eight months.
In July, three plots of land were sold—10 acres for £50,000, two acres for £6,500 and two acres for £7,000. This land had been bought originally for £40 or less an acre and was worth that price right up to 1938, when further land was bought. In November, 1961 selected lessees were written to and offered freehold reversion of their properties—at a price. I agree that this, again, is a complete denial of the policy of the original company—a policy which, we must stress, has never been rescinded and which York Hotel Limited promised to uphold when it made this take-over bid.
There is, however, another point,
something which I think is worse. So far, we have merely had a breach of a solemn promise, but this last point is the use of a Minister's name to give an impression to shareholders and to the public which was completely unfounded.
On 10th February, 1962, the director of this company which succeeded in seizing Letchworth wrote to every shareholder and alleged that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, on 30th September, 1960, had stated that he


would have no objection to the three resolutions passed by the original company in 1949 being rescinded. This lady concluded:
This was confirmed in writing on 23rd November, 1960.
She meant the then Minister.
The right hon Gentleman's letter is public property. I have a copy of it here. This lady's statement was, I think, the most odious statement to make in his name, because it was quite untrue. I will read what the right hon. Gentleman said, and if he wishes to contradict me he can quickly do so, for I see that he is present for the debate, although he is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
The right hon. Gentleman's letter refers to the three resolutions. The first resolution was an offer to be as helpful as possible in the further development of Letehworth, so that the Greater London plan could be successfully implemented. The Minister's comment upon that was:
This seems to be a wholly admirable resolution…
The second resolution asked the Minister for a list of names from whom the directors would appoint two further directors. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was not necessary and that the company could rescind that resolution if it wished. He felt sure that the Government could trust the company to carry out the original intentions.
The third resolution is the important one. I will read out what the right hon. Gentleman's letter said about this one:
The third resolution approved in principle the ultimate transfer, when the development of Letehworth is substantially completed, of the Company's undertaking to the local authority or other suitable public body. This followed the provision in the New Towns Act, 1946, envisaging the transfer to local authorities of new towns when substantially completed. That provision has been repealed. There has been substituted a provision for the setting up of a Commission, appointed by the Government, to own and manage the assets of the new towns when their development is substantially completed. The ownership of whole towns by local authorities no longer represents the policy of the Government.
Now we come to the last and most important paragraph in the right hon. Gentleman's letter, in which he gives his views:
Nevertheless, I realise that in the circumstances of Letehworth it might be desired by the general body of Letehworth citizens

that there should be some assurance that the interests of the founders should continue to govern the development of the town. Therefore while I would not think that that resolution in the original terms would be appropriate today and I would not in any way regret its being rescinded, I can conceive that a resolution expressing determinations, by some means or other, to maintain the original objects of the Company for the benefit of the town would be appropriate in its stead and would be generally welcomed.
How could that be considered to mean what this lady, the managing director of the take-over company, said it meant to every shareholder and to the public at large? How could this justify her words that the Minister had no objection to the resolution being rescinded?
We have heard about the purchase price that is to be offered by negotiation and agreement or by arbitration if these fail and it is more than handsome. This Bill means for the citizens of Letchworth an imposition of an extra 1s. 3d. rate for some years to come. They voted on this. There was a town's poll and 25 per cent. voted—a very high figure indeed for this sort of thing. By seven to two, they agreed to accept this burden in order to be rid of the danger of their garden city being destroyed.
Before I sit down, I want to quote a sentence in an article in the Economist of last week. Referring to this 1s. 3d. rate which the citizens of Letehworth must now bear, the article said:
However unfair this may have seemed to leaseholders, they have accepted the burden by a vote of seven to two in a recent town poll; and parliament's reaction may well be much the same"—
I hope that it will be the same, by ten to one—
in the hope of preserving intact this monument to town planning on which much of Britain's new-town building, with all its prestige, has been based.
Nowhere have I seen any reputable newspaper or columnist suggesting that the Bill is not well founded and should not be supported by this honourable House. I sincerely hope that the majority for it will be overwhelming. Wrong things have happened. I personally cannot see any objection to people pursuing private gain, but it should not be done with even a shadow of misrepresentation when so much is at stake. I hope that, when we go into the Division Lobbies, we shall see that the House


overwhelmingly supports the citizens of Letchworth.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mawby. I am calling the hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment, if he so desires.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I do not wish to move the Amendment, and the reason I put it down was to make certain that this Bill was debated. It raises large issues, and I believe that I am quite correct in speaking against the Motion, That this Bill be read a Second time, and I shall give my reasons for putting the Amendment on the Order Paper.
I believe that this is a very important Bill, and that it is one in which—

Mr. Charles Pannell: Why did they not put up an important Member for a start?

Mr. Mawby: With reference to what the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has just said, I am a very unimportant Member, but I believe that I am a Member of Parliament with just as much right as anybody else to raise what I believe are points which have concerned me since first seeing this Bill. I hope that the House will give me the same treatment which has been accorded to the other speeches which have been very well delivered and to the point. I hope that my rambling will at least show some semblance of what I feel about the Bill.
I see this Bill as an effort by an urban district council to nationalise or municipalise what, as far as I can make out at present, is an ordinary property company. Therefore, as I see it, it ought to have the opposite point of view put to the House. It is interesting to recall, when talking about the original intention of the company when setting up this garden city, that its original intention, when it started off with very good ideals, was to raise the capital necessary on fixed-interest mortgage debentures. In fact, on that basis it failed to obtain the capital needed. Therefore, it raised it by ordinary share capital, and naturally when one raises risk capital one must make certain that there is a reasonable return to the shareholders to make sure that they will invest. Therefore, from the very beginning this has not been truly a trust but it has been a company.

Nevertheless, in its original articles of association it restricted itself in many ways which an ordinary property company would not normally do, and it is important that we should work on that basis.

Mr. John Diamond: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the method by which the capital was raised has no relevance whatever in considering the objections of the organisation? If they are concerned with those objects, and he has said they were the objects of a trust, that is not in the slightest degree invalidated by the fact that the capital was raised in one form or another.

Mr. Mawby: The important thing is that, as far as I can see, the original articles of the company never set this out to be a trust as such. In fact, the company had written its articles in such a way that it was a property company, with special additions, I agree, but basically to make certain that there were shareholders prepared to risk capital in investing in this company. I believe that this is an important point that ought to be made at the very beginning.
As my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) has pointed out, development has proceeded right from the word "go" on the leasehold system, and one sees that there was good reason for the development of the leasehold principle at that time, which was mainly to ensure that town planning of the estate was rigidly controlled by the company. In the absence at that time of town planning by the local authorities, the company, being the ground landlord, could itself control the development of the town, and was not leaving it to develop in a slap-happy way, because town planning arrangements were not then in being.
Therefore, one can see in the first reasons for setting up the company and working on the leasehold system the basis on which it could make certain that it could, as a company, effectively control the development of the town along the lines on which the company felt it should develop. Of course, there have been many changes since that time. For instance, the gas and electricity undertakings of the company have been


nationalised, and, therefore, the company is no longer completely in control. Secondly, a rigorous system of town planning has been instituted by legislation, and, at the present moment, I would doubt if the company has very much say in how the town shall further develop, because, in fact, planning permission must be obtained from a public authority, whose duty it is to see that the statutes are carried out in the proper planning of the town. Therefore, the basic reason for operating the leasehold system has mainly gone, because the planning side has been taken over by the planning system, whereby the local authorities have very strict control over the development of buildings of any kind.
By this time, or by the time the town planning system had developed, the principle for which the company was formed was, in my opinion, accomplished, but then the urban district council asked the then Minister of Town and Country Planning if he would take over the company under tthe new towns procedure. At that time, considering the political colour of the Government in office, one would naturally expect an urban district council to ask that that should be done, but, in fact, it is now general knowledge that the Minister of the day, now Lord Silkin, decided otherwise and that the company was not to be taken over.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: He was more impartial than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mawby: That may be quite true. In fact, I would not be speaking if I were impartial. It is because I hold a view about this Bill and because I am partial that I am making this speech.

Mr. J. T. Price: Read your brief.

Mr. Mawby: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt?

Mr. Price: I say that the hon. Gentleman is speaking because he holds a brief, not because he holds a view.

Mr. Mawby: It is rather extraordinary that hon. Members opposite should suggest that because I can put two words together I am reading from a brief which someone else has provided. That

is completely wrong; in fact, I am making a speech which I have spent a long time preparing. If hon. Gentlemen opposite feel that it is a brief, then I am making more progress than I had hoped I would make, because apparently I am making a better job of it.
The main point that I want to make here is that while the Minister of Town and Country Planning at that time decided that he would not take over the company under the new towns procedure, nevertheless he did ask the directors of the company if they would make certain changes; in other words, whether they would pass a number of resolutions, which are now well-known to the House, because the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has read out the resolutions that were moved at that time.
The resolution which really matters is the third, which reads:
that the stockholders approved in principle the ultimate transfer when the development of Letchworth was substantially completed of the undertaking to the Local Authority or other suitable public body subject to satisfactory terms being then agreed.
With the other two, that resolution was passed.
If, as has been said, the principle was inherent in the company's articles, why did the Minister at the time have to twist the arm of the company to pass a resolution which would only repeat what was said to be inherent?

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I have listened to the argument of the hon. Member with great care and attention. At one stage he said that he did not find it surprising, bearing in mind the colour of the then Government, that the local council should have approached the Minister with a request to take over the company. I agree with him so far that doctrinally there were reasons for supposing that the Minister would be disposed to that action. Does he, therefore, not agree that it is all the more significant that a Labour Minister of Town and Country Planning should not have been willing—in fact should positively have opposed—to agree to the taking of this company into public ownership? Does he not think that coming from a Labour Minister that is a fair indication of the benefits of private enterprise as worked under this system?

Mr. Mawby: That may well be true. What I am saying is that there was a point at which the Minister was tending to suggest to the directors that they must pass these three resolutions if he was to leave them alone. That is hearsay, and I do not know if it is correct. I was not here at the time, but it is obvious that the fact that the then Minister suggested that the company should pass these three resolutions apparently means that he was not seized of the idea, which has been put forward earlier, that it was inherent in the company's articles that the company should ultimately be transferred to the local authority.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. Central mentioned the letter written by my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Housing and Local Government and is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury to Mr. Edge, who was then the company chairman. This letter is interesting. Incidentally, I should like to take up with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central a slight misrepresentation. I think that he was referring to a circular which was sent to the company's shareholders. I know that he did not intend to make that innuendo. This is a circular dated 10th February, 1952. It was being suggested that because the contents of the letter were not divulged to the shareholders a decision different from that expected by the chairman of the company was taken. I think that in her letter the chairman is trying to show that if the letter had been shown to the shareholders at that meeting the decision might have been different.

Dr. Stross: It is certain that the Minister's letter would have influenced shareholders against the take-over bid, or, rather, would have made them strongly in favour of keeping to the original intention dating back to 1903, for the Minister himself advised that that should be so.

Mr. Mawby: That may be true. I only wanted to clear up the misunderstanding. The chairman was making the point for a reason entirely different from that which the hon. Member had in mind.
Referring to the request that he should nominate two directors of the company, my right hon. Friend said in his letter:

Certainly I as Minister would not wish to press the names of particular persons, nor would it embarrass me if the resolution were rescinded. I feel sure that the Government can count on the co-operation of the Company, without such special arrangements.
In the light of that, if it is desirable for the company to be taken over, will my right hon. Friend be very unhappy about having to nominate members of the corporation? This is a Bill promoted by a local authority and gives the Minister power to appoint members of the corporation. In the light of what was said in the letter—

Mr. Scholefield Allen: The hon. Member is referring to 1962. As he is a supporter of the Bill, we are anxious to hear his explanation of the letter written by Mrs. Amy Rose in August, 1960, when she gave an undertaking
to ensure the future of Letchworth as a unified estate in accordance with the principles upon which the town has been developed since its foundation by your Company in 1903.
I hope that the hon. Member will deal with that, because it is the most significant thing in the whole letter.

Mr. Mawby: No doubt the hon. and learned Member will be able to make his own speech. I am not here to support either the promoters of the Bill or Mrs. Rose. What I want to point out are the dangers inherent in the Bill. This is a subject which can be raised only in Committee when the lady herself can be questioned, but I cannot represent the chairman of a company with which I have no contact and in which I have no shares. What her view was and why she took that view at that time are questions which are nothing to do with me.
The third point in my right hon. Friend's letter, on the subject of the third resolution, was:
This followed the provision in the New Towns Act, 1946, envisaging the transfer to local authorities of new towns when substantially completed. That provision has been repealed. There has been substituted the provision for the setting up of a Commission…
In the light of that, if it is desirable that the company should be taken over, why have the Government not taken the initiative and included the company under the New Towns Commission?
The next point is the fact that the Bill seeks to continue the leasehold system in perpetuity. That is Inherent in the Bill,


and it is important that we should consider this factor. It ignores the fact that the main need for a leasehold has gone. Planning is now controlled by legislation and not by the company. This also denies any right of the leaseholder to negotiate the purchase of the freehold and is against the principle of the property-owning democracy. Even some hon. Members opposite are on record as supporting this principle. I will quote only one very recent statement. The hon. member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callagham) said this in a supplementary question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs:
We welcome what the Minister has said about hardship.
This concerned leaseholds. The hon. Gentleman continued:
Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to take into consideration in this matter that there is almost a universal demand in South Wales that leaseholders should be free to purchase the freehold of their property? Will he also take this into account before making a statement of policy and, if he is willing, introduce legislation?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 184.]
This view is held by one of the Labour Front Bench spokesmen. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman holds this view because he believes that it is true.
If this is so, why should this desire be restricted to the people of South Wales? Are the people of South Wales different people? It may be argued that people will be happy to submerge their desires if their landlord is a public corporation. I very much doubt it. Not everyone is completely happy as a tenant of public corporations. The fact that people become tenants of corporations is no reason why they should no longer have the right which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East suggested that everyone wished to have, namely, the right to be able to negotiate if they so desire to purchase their freehold and become freeholders.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Did not the people in Letch-worth go there on the understanding that this arrangement would endure for all time?

Mr. Mawby: That may be so, but it is not reflected in the number of people who, I understand, have already applied to purchase their freeholds. This is a very important point.
If there are complaints—I believe that this is the general view of many hon. Members—that this is a monopoly landlord, I should give the facts. There are in fact 76 freehold plots totallying 694 acres which are not owned or controlled by the company. On that area and in those buildings are 5,825 ratepayers who are not company tenants in any sense of the word.

Mr. Diamond: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am in favour of the Bill and have been supplied with information by the Letchworth Corporation? May I ask him who supplied him with his detailed information about the number of plots, which are freehold, which are leasehold, and so on?

Mr. Mawby: This again is the argument which comes up time after time—I believe it is a wrong argument—that when a man is attacked by a lion he has no right to defend himself. This is completely wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question".] I will say where I got my facts from. I obtained my facts from the Parliamentary Agents who are representing the petitioners to the Bill. I do not believe that I have done anything wrong in obtaining this information. I believe that the Bill should be considered. Therefore, I have taken a great deal of trouble to find what information I could. It is right and proper that an hon. Member should obtain this information. This is what I have sought to do. These are facts which I am stating. They have been provided to me and, as far as I know, they are accurate. If anyone can dispute them, I shall be happy to argue with them.
The main point I want to make is that there are 5,825 ratepayers who are not company tenants. This is certainly not a monopoly company. The argument that a monopoly should be treated differently is wrong. I understand that in 1958 the urban district council compulsorily acquired 198 acres of residential land and 20 acres of industrial land, which again goes to refute the suggestion that this is a monopoly company.
Under Clause 32 (2) the corporation may issue a precept to the district council to make up any deficiency there may be in the operations of the corporation. I understand that the financial adviser to the district council has estimated the cost to the ratepayers. Naturally this is an approximate figure, but I have no doubt that the figure is as accurate as he can get it. He says that the amount the ratepayers would have to pay would be equal to an average rate of 1s. 3d. in the £ for the first three years, reduced to 6½d. in the £ for the next three years, after which there would be a credit. This is presumably based on an assessment of the amount of compensation to be paid. This is a matter which will be decided later if the Bill goes through.
What puzzles me is this. I understand that the first lease falls in in forty years' time. The urban district council, which is promoting the Bill, has laid it down that the corporation will carry on this company as an entity. If that is so, presumably the income will remain the same for the next forty years. How on earth can there be a reducing rate burden if the company continues to earn the same amount for the next forty years until the first lease falls in, after which the modern day rental for the lease can be negotiated?

Sir Eric Errington: Has my hon. Friend any information as to the present rent roll of the company?

Mr. Mawby: No, I have no idea of the rent roll. If the first lease falls in in forty years' time and the estate is to be kept as an entity so that
no capital can be made by selling anything, presumably the rents will remain the same until new leases can be negotiated. How can the company begin to make a profit in six years' time? This is the question which puzzles me. Is there any answer to it?
There is power in Clause 11, amongst other things, to dispose of land. I only hope that the corporation will not start disposing of land, because the whole point of the Bill is to keep the estate in its entirety. This would be one way in which the income of the company could be increased.
Parliament must be very careful before it sanctions retrospective legislation. This is an extremely important point,

because my noble Friend made it obvious—he did not seek to hide the fact—that if the Bill is passed its powers will extend back to June, 1961. He said that, if the notice had been issued and if the Bill was not retrospective, the company could have sold the freeholds in the meantime. The very fact that he believes that the company could have sold the freeholds in the meantime presupposes that the company is, as my opinion tells me, a normal property company. This disposes of the main arguments which have been advanced in favour of the Bill.
The promoters have gone out of their way to say that the Bill is unique. I believe that it could create a very dangerous precedent. Once we accept the fact that a public authority can by compulsion become a ground landlord, we open the door to many authorities taking the view that this may be a way out of their leasehold problems. I can well imagine hon. Members opposite feeling that this is a good way of pushing the door open because, once the door is open, they can then push it a little further open. I would, therefore, suggest to my hon. Friends that they should think very seriously about the precedent which could be established by the passing of this Bill.
If any apology is needed, I apologise for the time that I have taken up in putting what I believe are views which ought to be put concerning the Bill.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am one of the few Members of the House who is older than the idea adumbrated by Ebenezer Howard. I remember that in 1898, when I was 16 years old, I was given a copy of his book, with the advice that I should read it. I read it.
In 1898, it was a revelation of what could be done at a time when the housing of the working classes, sometimes alluded to as the housing of the labouring poor, was beginning to attract attention. It was about that time that the Royal Commission, on which the then Prince of Wales served, was reaching its conclusions and making its report. It was the conception of the idea that there could be built up a community, representing all classes, living in corporate association in an effort to avoid the creation of further slums, which at that


time disgraced not merely the great cities, but many of the small towns.
In 1902, I gave a lecture on the subject with a Conservative Member of Parliament in the chair. I think that it was the only time a Conservative Member of Parliament has been in the chair at any meeting I have addressed. So impressed was he with the idea that when, a year later, I went up to Cambridge, he gave me a sum of money, with his good wishes for my success. Unfortunately, his sum of money was not sufficient to pay for a three-year course in Cambridge in that day. I owe it to his memory to speak tonight in favour of the Bill because it preserves the spirit which appealed to the imagination of such people as could be impressed in the year 1898. All that has happened since springs from the work of Ebenezer Howard.
It is true that a few employers—W. H. Lever and Cadbury's—had something of the same idea in the kind of benevolent atmosphere of the nineteenth century liberal capitalists. They did a great work and the towns that they built remain to this day as wonderful memorials of the attitude that they adopted. That was somebody outside creating a community of people working for one firm. While I have never decried what they did, Ebenezer Howard produced the idea that not a capitalist but the people living on the land should create a community. Both sides of the House have benefited from the pioneer work done by that man.
I regret to see that an effort is now being made by certain financial interests to depart from the principle on which this town was established. I want to remind the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) that the people of Letchworth are going into this with their eyes open. After all, seven to two are very good odds in most public polls—much better than Orpington, because these people are building on facts and not on woolly imagination.
These people, realising the benefit of living under this system, are willing to incur a rate of 1s. 3d. in the £ for a start, steadily diminishing. How many of us in public life, who have served years on municipalities, have ever known our constituents to come along and say, "Put up the rates by 1s. 3d."? I wonder how much of the result at Orpington was

due to the fact that rates are going up, and that some people—I do not agree with them—think that revaluation will double the rates. I cannot see how that can be done.
At this time, when most of the people in this town are not great capitalists but people who have to earn their living every day, and to whom rising rates are always a great source of anxiety, they have volunteered, having lived under the system, to pay 1s. 3d. in the £ for three years, so that this town may continue.
I welcome the speech made by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), because it seemed to me to breath the original spirit of 1898, which was really the first great public response to the position that had been given to the housing of the working classes by the acceptance of the Prince of Wales to sit on the Royal Commission. I do not want to go into the implications of that and whether it would not have improved the Prince of Wales to have been appointed to a similar post many years before.
There was in that ideal of 1898 a quickening of the public conscience in these matters and, most important, there was the first conception of the modern town as a corporate community like the great towns of England of the Middle Ages giving a new spirit to the task of living together and promoting the joint interests of all concerned.
I should be false to everything I have been brought up to believe in if I did not ask tonight that the Bill should go forward, enshrining the hopes of a community founded and fostered on the principles which its provisions set forth.

8.21 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I shall deal with two points only. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) referred to the memorandum given to shareholders on 15th September, 1949. This memorandum arose specifically as a result of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
Lord Silkin, who was then the Labour Minister, was prepared to say that the company was the best vehicle to help in the planned completion of the town, subject only to the three matters to which reference has already been made, the


most important being the third item in his letter, namely, the approval in principle by the shareholders of the ultimate transfer, when the development of Letch-worth was substantially completed, of the company's undertaking to the local authority or other suitable body, subject to satisfactory terms. The reason for that was that the development value under the 1947 Act became vested in the State and not, as heretofore, in the inhabitants of Letchworth.
In parenthesis, I must say that in 1948, the statutory undertakings, on being nationalised, were compensated for expenditure of £1,370,000 by £1,681,000, which meant a gain to the company of £300,000 or so. The next important event after that was that, in consequence of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, the State abandoned the claim to development value, which meant the restoration of the full equity to the shareholders and not to the townspeople. It was for this reason that the company became vulnerable to a take-over bid.
With hindsight, one can say that a step should have been taken by the company to avoid this outcome, but, in fact, this was not done and the various concerns which have sought to take over the company have taken advantage of the fact of the development value resting with the shareholders, and not, as was intended and as should have been secured, with the citizens of Letchworth.
The second matter to which I wish to refer is the question of retrospective legislation. There was a public meeting of the interested parties in Letchworth on 1st December, 1960, and at that meeting a resolution was passed setting out the views of 8,536 inhabitants of Letchworth Garden City. Those views clearly showed that they considered that the company ought to continue to be a trust for the benefit of the community. From that date, it was also made quite clear that the local authority intended to promote a Private Bill.
I do not see how it was possible for the local authority to do anything but give the notice of 20th July, 1961, that it would include a Clause providing for the acquisition of interests disposed of subsequent to that date other than in the normal course of business. It was the only thing Which would prevent the company as now controlled "jumping the gun". Indeed, when one looks at what

happened on 25th July, 1961, only four days afterwards, one finds that three parcels of land were sold, one at £5,000 an acre, one at £3,250 an acre, and one at £3,500 an acre, making a total price of £63,500 for 14 acres of land which was bought for £560.
I do not consider that this Bill is necessarily retrospective, in view of the notice which was given, but if ever retrospective legislation was justified it is justified on this occasion.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Unlike my right hon.—and venerable—Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I cannot go back to 1898 with remembrance of reading Ebenezer Howard's book Garden Cities of Tomorrow, but not many years later I remember securing a copy and being inspired by the outline of the future which that very humble but wonderful man embodied in his book.
For the last fifty years, I have been domestically associated, directly or indirectly, with the urban district of Letchworth. I say that because one should, I suppose disclose one's interest in matters on which one speaks in the House. My interest is not a financial one, but is, I frankly confess, entirely idealistic. I do not apologise for it. Ebenezer Howard was one of the pioneers who gathered around him people of more than one party, but who felt that he stood for something better and different from the cities and dwelling places of the Britain of his day.
I was very much impressed by the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). After all, he is a well-known Conservative. No one can accuse him of having Socialist tendencies. The hon. Gentleman appreciated that Letchworth represents a voluntary attempt to serve the common need, so surely there can be some kind of common association in this matter between hon. Members of both sides of the House. Equally, no one can despise the efforts made by the pioneers in the past and of those who, today, voluntarily implement this conception of a town built up by and for the citizens themselves and to and for which they are commercially responsible. In that way, they are nourishing a sense of social idealism which is all too rare nowadays.
I would like to know just what is the real intention for opposing this desire on the part of the citizens of Letchworth? They are aware of all the objections that have been raised, of the financial burden they may have to bear but, despite that, they have agreed—and I mean those citizens who are members of all parties and of none, Conservative, Labour and Liberal and, presumably of the other parties which may be represented in Letchworth—that the Bill will help to still further implement the intention and purpose of Ebenezer Howard some years ago.
During those days when I visited Letchworth I saw few houses. The place was notorious for being a kind of mecca for cranks, including myself. That notoriety has long since gone and today about 25,000 people—some of whom being relations, I see fairly frequently—represent an ordinary cross-section of the population. I hope that there still are some cranks there, but that they have taken their due place amid the larger whole.
At one time all kinds of experiments were taking place in Letchworth. The sister of our late and good friend Lord Perthick-Lawrence initiated a rather remarkable institution which he called the Cloisters. As a theological student, I went there for a rest at the end of term only to be yanked out of my bunk the first day at 6 a.m. and compelled to do drill on the lawn, learn the arts of pottery and weaving, and to gambol to the tune of the country dance, "Rufty Tufty."
That sort of thing is symbolic of those days, but Letchworth has now developed into a more prosaic community. It represents some implementation of the ideals which some of us had in our younger days. I ask hon. Members whether they really want to see this destroyed or injured. It may be that only 25 per cent. of the population voted and that 75 per cent. of them were indifferent. But that is fairly normal, for the 25 per cent. are those who really count. It is the minority who are more conscious than the majority of the ideals and purposes which inspire and permeate the rest. I am persuaded that the 25 per cent. who took the trouble to vote were those

who stood for the conscience and vision of Letchworth as a whole.
Can we really say to those who now inhabit Letchworth and who have this residual idealism of the past that they should not have their wishes fulfilled? I have to ask myself just what is the intention of those who oppose the Bill, not merely in this House, but outside it; in particular, of York Hotel Limited. Can we say that such opposition has any kind of residual idealism about it? I am sure that the manager and shareholders of that company would agree that the firm's primary purpose, if not its sole aim, is financial. That is, of course, what activates large numbers of similar organisations.
I urge hon. Members to compare that with the First Garden City Limited. Can one deny as between the two that there is something more laudable about the second than the first? Therefore, those who oppose the Bill and seek to prevent it being passed are endorsing that purely mercenary intention. In saying that, I alone declare it to be mercenary, for the representatives of the company to which I referred would be the first, I am sure, to say that what I have said is true.
Thus, particularly in these days of sometimes rather menacing, if not sinister, take-over bids, we should do something to preserve this element of practical idealism which was initiated so many years ago. Today, though small compared to the larger new towns that have grown up around London, perhaps this area seems to be less significant now than then. It is, nevertheless, the pioneer of what is now taking place.
For these reasons, I most earnestly ask the House to support what I have called the residual idealism not only in the Bill, but in the support given to it by the citizens of Letchworth.

8.35 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: Like the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), I feel that I ought to begin by explaining why I have any concern with this matter. I have no direct concern whatever with Letchworth. I am concerned only for two personal reasons.
The first is that I have always been an admirer of Ebenezer Howard. He was, after all, a remarkable character. I do not know whether it is generally


appreciated in the House that Ebenezer Howard was employed for twenty years as an official shorthand writer in the House of Commons by Messrs. Gurney. So he must have exercised great patience sometimes. He then worked in the Law Courts, again as a shorthand writer, until he was 70. He had to do that because he had to keep himself going. But he still found time to create this remarkable project. He was also associated with another great character, Sir Ralph Neville, who was afterwards a distinguished judge. Sir Ralph Neville was the first chairman.
It is entirely misleading to regard Letchworth as involving any question of political principle. It is quite different from any other case that I have ever had to consider in this field, having learnt something in the past about compulsory purchase and all those matters and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, with which I am afraid I must have bored a number of people on a number of occasions when I was responsible for it.
Letchworth is an entirely exceptional achievement. It succeeded only after tremendous initial difficulty. It was the forerunner of garden cities all over the world. In America and other places there are cities which have been built on its model. In fact, I think it true to say that Letchworth was the first British town to be planned as a whole since the time of the Romans. In those circumstances we ought very carefully to examine the foundation of the opposition.
I ought perhaps to have said that, in addition to knowing a good deal about Ebenezer Howard, I have a very good friend whose father was the financial manager and secretary of the corporation for many years, and I have had the advantage of a considerable amount of information from him.
The basic principle of Letchworth was always that when fully developed it should be transferred to a public body, retained as a unitary freehold and managed on behalf of the residents. That principle was always maintained, and reiterated time and time again at annual meetings, in public speeches and on all sorts of occasions, and Letchworth was built up upon it.
In August, 1960, when speculation took place in the shares the company and the council were perturbed by the dangers which they thought threatened Letchworth, and, as we have heard, they got together. But they were overtaken by the offer which was made from the Hotel York. It has been quoted, and there is no need to quote it again, but it is essential that we should bear in mind the very formal nature of that document:
In the event of the offer becoming unconditional "—
it is not a casual letter—
it would be the intention of York, of which I and my family are the controlling shareholders, to ensure the future of Letchworth as a unified estate in accordance with the principles upon which the town has been developed since its foundation by your company in 1903.
That almost suggests that it was drafted by a lawyer.
On 22nd November, 1960, a circular was issued to the shareholders. Part of it has been read, but there is another passage which ought to be read. This is what the board said to the shareholders on that
date:
A substantial number of people hold shares in the company. They believe in the garden city ideal, and their concern will not only be with financial considerations but with the maintenance of the ideal which has been upheld by successive boards of directors to the best of their ability for fifty years.
That was in everybody's mind at the time when the chairman of the Hotel York made the offer, and no doubt it was made knowing that people would be concerned and in order to reassure them.
It is a remarkable fact that the chairman of the company at the annual general meeting in 1961 categorically stated that there was no intention of selling any freeholds. The present chairman was also at the meeting. After the meeting the former chairman resigned and was succeeded by the present chairman. The meeting was not informed of that.
It soon became obvious that very drastic changes were contemplated. In June, 1961, the company stated its intention to sell freeholds, and it did so, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). On 21st July, 1961, three plots were sold—two acres for £6,800, two for £7,000 and ten for £50,000. When someone recently asked how this could be reconciled with


the statement upon the faith of which the shareholders parted with their shares, I understand that it was stated that the company no longer regarded the undertaking as binding. Indeed, it does not, to judge from a number of statements which have been made. When we ask why that is, my hon. Friend who opposed the Bill replies that it was then discovered that 600 acres had been sold and that, therefore, this put an end to the whole thing. Hon. Members may regard that as a somewhat makeshift excuse.
My hon. Friend made some statements which were not of a very informative character, but I have the details—636 acres out of 4,000 acres. There had been sales to the Letchworth U.D.C. for the purpose of housing and there had been 200 acres for the purpose of a town development scheme. In 1920, 6 acres were purchased for cemetery purposes; one wonders whether that is thought to be sufficient to vitiate the whole undertaking. Hertfordshire bought 61 acres, the gas works 7·5, the water undertaking 3 and the Post Office 0·6 acres, a total of 636 acres.
One may ask whether the company did not know about that when it made its offer. Could it not have been ascertained with the least inquiry? Is not this a flimsy excuse? One wonders what would be the answer if one of the shareholders were to take legal proceedings on the basis of the formal document which I have read. I should not like to give legal advice on that. Perhaps other people have considered it or might do so. If, however, there was a case of a moral obligation, one would think that that would be it.
It is said to be a great matter of principle to oppose the Bill. I do not believe it for a moment. I do believe, however, that there are other principles which may be involved, to whichever party we belong. The keeping of promises, good faith, fair dealing and truthfulness are principles which all of us in this House are anxious to encourage.
What I have said, I have said on information which I believe to be accurate and which is available to anyone in this House. I cannot prove it. The proper way to deal with this matter is for it

to go to a Committee of this House, which can hear evidence and hear witnesses cross-examined, on oath if necessary, and arrive at the facts. That is what will happen if we give the Bill a Second Reading. If we do not do so, we shall connive at an arrangement by which—

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: We do not examine anyone on oath.

Sir L. Heald: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the matter. I am looking forward to hearing a most brilliant oration from him.
If we strangle the Bill at birth, one thing that we shall be doing is allowing the whole matter to be hushed up when it should be fully inquired into.

8.47 p.m.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I have no intention of being brilliant and I have no intention of being long. I have no connection of any kind with Letchworth, with the York company, with Mrs. Rose, or with any of them. I know nothing about the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear."] That is very helpful to me. I was just about to say that it is quite extraordinary, when there is a debatable matter before the House, to see the extraordinary hatred with which most hon. and right hon. Members opposite regard debate. The spokesmen for the view which they hold have been heard with the greatest attention and with the utmost courtesy by all of us throughout.
Before I could get up at all, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) did his best to be funny, as he thought, at my expense in anticipation. All I know about the Bill is, I repeat, that I have read it and I have read what might be called the brief against it. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite were anxious to bully or stop hon. Members on this side from speaking on the ground that they had a brief. They had to get some information and even arguments from somwhere. Facts and arguments would not be useless to some hon. Members opposite. What I know about the Bill is the little that an amateur can find out by reading it quickly, and the case as put by the Parliamentary Agents for it. That is all I know about it, apart from what I have


heard this afternoon, to which I want to make one or two references.
I often attain brilliance, but I am not very much accustomed to congratulating myself on my moral superiorities, or even my moral efforts, but I hope that I am not less sensitive than those who may happen to take the opposite view from me to politics or about the Bill. I hope that I am not less sensitive than them to matters of principle—and, incidentally, the rather odd anomaly of Conservative principle, ideals, spirit and imagination. I hope that I preserve these things as clearly as the average Member of Parliament and I hope that I am as much attached to them. I am particularly fond of the name Ebenezer and also the name Howard, and I do not particularly dislike the names Cadbury and Fry—who were not altogether unconnected with this occasion. But what has all that got to do with it? It has got nothing whatever to do with the matter before the House.
With respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey, he almost said that we ought not to have a Second Reading debate on this sort of thing and that it could be dealt with properly by a Committee [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am within the recollection of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I heard his words and he very nearly said that. He certainly gave me that impression—that we were not to strangle this piece of idealism on the Floor of the House, which was what we should be doing if we refused to pass the Bill, and that the proper way to consider it was to send it upstairs. I think that I am quoting his words fairly exactly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Then why make noises at me if I say it over again?
What is it that this debate is about? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey—I am sure he is right, and it strengthens my argument, though perhaps he will correct me again if I am mistaken—said that any shareholder could have taken proceedings. That is what he said, if I understand him aright.

Sir L. Heald: No. I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman must not do that. I was very careful to say that I was not expressing an opinion.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I am very sorry. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman must not tell me that I must; not do that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am trying to make an argumentative speech. Only one has yet been made from this side, and every effort was made to make that one impossible, or at least extremely difficult.
What is it about? I had thought that there was a question of proceedings. I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if in any way I gave the impression that he gave a legal opinion which he did not give, but I understood him to say, "Why did not any of the shareholders take proceedings?".

Sir L. Heald: No.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I can continue with the argument whether the answer to that one is "Yes" or "No". Either way the argument can be continued.
If no proceedings can be taken, then I suppose—and again I may need assistance, if I am wrong about this—that that makes it clear that there is no legal objection to what is being done.

Sir L. Heald: I did not say they could not.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I am not referring to the hon. and learned Gentleman now.

Mr. Archie Manuel: The hon. Member does not know where he is.

Sir K. Pickthorn: If there are no legal proceedings—and I really do not wish it to be thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that there could be legal proceedings—then it seems to me fairly plain that what we are arguing about is whether something should now be done to give legal rights to somebody who, at that time, had not got them and to take away legal rights from somebody who, at the time, had got them. That is the question before us.
I am very sorry that we have not had the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). I hoped to hear his legal explanation of this. Let me give the House mine, not because I think it authoritative, but because I hope that the Ministerial speech, which will


be based upon legal advice, will correct me if I am giving the House the wrong impression.
This is what seems to me, speaking as a layman, the legal point. Mrs. Rose bought legally a piece of legal property which was not at that time legally guaranteed against rents involving a factor for the buildings upon it. That is what she bought. Now a Bill has been promoted by an interested party—by an extremely interested party a Bill has been promoted—to take away from her not all that she bought, but some of what she bought and to give what is called compensation.
One of the evils of all the things of this sort is that the word "compensation" has very nearly got to the point of losing all meaning. Once upon a time, if somebody took from me my hat or my bicycle everybody assumed that compensation for it meant that the State could force that person to give me something which made good the loss. Compensation, more and more, comes to mean anything which the State with its control of all capital and all income may choose to dole out to somebody who has a grievance and whose grievance would otherwise be intolerable.
The compensation which this lady
is to get is to be not for all she bought, but for what she sold and bought minus one considerable factor in its value. This is what it seems to me the Bill is about and what this debate is about, and that seems to me not a matter for a Select Committee to decide. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey told us that no political principle was involved here. Surely the fundamental political principle—but they had higher objects—upon which almost all States are founded—and were founded until the Russian and the Chinese Communist States—was that they were there to defend people in the holding and exercise of their legal rights.
Now we are here proposing to diminish that legal right and we were told that there could never be a case like it again. Never again? We are all adjured more than once that this is a great work of imagination. Is there anybody in the Chamber who cannot imagine there ever being again a case where A has bought something from B in which afterwards it

is decided by some gentlemen's agreement, or if one looks at the higher morality, and not the mere legalism or what not, "We never ought to have sold, all that and, therefore, we shall now take it away from A and give him 'compensation' for that part of the value which we think it was proper to deal with and not the other"?
This is this case, and if the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey cannot imagine any such case arising again he is less imaginative than any lawyer I have ever met before.

Sir L. Heald: I did not say that, either. I did not say a word of that.

Sir K. Pickthorn: If my right hon. and learned Friend will leave HANSARD alone until tomorrow morning—

Sir L. Heald: I will.

Sir K. Pickthorn: —and then read it carefully, he will see how nearly I have reproduced him, I assure him.

Sir L. Heald: I never thought of doing that before. That is my hon. Friend's idea that one goes and alters HANSARD.

Sir K. Pickthorn: Everybody else does. I was not suggesting that my right hon. and learned Friend ought to alter HANSARD. What I was suggesting was that in a cooler mood, not having read it before, he should read what the reporter thinks he said and then see whether I was wrong.
For all I have to say to the contrary, Letchworth Garden City may be the noblest enterprise of man. For all I have to say to the contrary, it may be the last chance of defending what is left of human virtue and human hope. For all I have got to say to the contrary, also—althongh I think it is a mistake, if one can possibly avoid it, to use the opportunity of debate in the House to cast aspersions upon persons outside it—the Hotel York Company may be the most deleterious company and its managing director—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ellis Smith: Order. This is a Private Bill.

Sir K, Pickthorn: I know that.
For all that I know to the contrary all these things may be so. But I submit


that they have nothing to do with the fundamental question. We cannot interfere with the whole nature of the relationship between the Legislature and land holdings, leases, freeholds, and so on, simply on the ground that we like Ebenezer Howard and that we do not like Mrs. Rose, or on the ground that there are many gentleman's agreements, explicit and implicit, which should have prevented her from doing something.
It is upon that basis that I think that this was a matter eminently suitable for debate on Second Reading, and that I hope that the House will refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I seek to intervene with very great brevity, if only to indicate that the Bill enjoys support from all quarters of the House. I want to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). What the right ban. Member for South Shields (Mr. Bde) meant when he said that the spirit of 1898 had been recreated was that the same principles which had motivated the
founders were motivating the noble Lord in the second half of the twentieth century with great relevance and great cogency. One of the first founders was the late Lord Salisbury, and it is interesting to note that this Bill has been introduced by one who, by marriage, is that late Lord Salisbury's great nephew.
I should like to deal with a few points which have been raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and the hon. Member for Cambridge—

Sir K. Pickthorn: Carlton.

Mr. Thorpe: Yes, I am sorry. I believe that Cambridge was his former constituency. I apologise to the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn). I hope that throughout my speech I shall be as brief and as calm as he was throughout his.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Totnes with great care, and it seemed to me that he was concerned with three points. It may be that there were others, but the points to which he seemed to attach most weight were, first, that retrospective legislation was wrong—which subject was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Carlton: secondly, that

this was a form of municipalisation or nationalisation, and, thirdly, that this was a situation in which there was not a trust—as had been suggested by other hon. Members—but a perfectly ordinary company.
The hon. Member for Carlton also advanced the argument that this was a situation in which A had purchased from B and A was being deprived of his legal rights in order that B—or those who had an interest in B—might be given legal rights which they did not previously enjoy. Those were the main arguments put forward by those who oppose the Bill.
It is of great significance that someone of the legal experience of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald)—a former Attorney-General—somebody with a lifelong experience of local government, such as the right hon. Member for South Shields, and someone with a great experience of property matters, such as the noble Baronet the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington)—

Sir E. Errington: I am not a baronet.

Mr. Thorpe: I apologise. I can assure the hon. Member that one is less likely previously to baronetise an hon. Member opposite than to fail to address him as such when he is one. All those hon. Members have spoken in support of the Bill, and I only hope that if there is a Division those hon. Members who wish to vote and have not had the advantage of hearing the debate will be told by other hon. Members who have heard it of the stature of those hon. Members who have spoken before myself, and of the arguments that they have put forward.
The Times put the situation very well in an article on 15th February which said:
Not one penny was ever put into the Company with the idea of making large monetary gains, and those people and industries which came to Letchworth were attracted there very largely by the promise which these principles, stated again and again in the Company's publications, held out.…
It is against this historical background that the future of Letchworth is to be considered. It would indeed be a matter for dismay if purely commercial consideration were to prevail.
I do not say that up to the time of the purchase there was a trust, but I believe


that the investors were in a quasi-fiduciary relationship to the company. I know that that is not a phrase of which the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) approves, hut it was in the nature of a trust, and those who invested did so with the knowledge that there would be a limitation of dividends and that the benefit would subsequently go back to the community as a whole.
Therefore, up to the time of purchase we are dealing with something which, if not a trust in the sense that the Chancery Division would hold there to be if there were a trustee, was a company whose shareholders invested in the full knowledge that they were investing in a particular type of economic concern and that a particular treatment would be given to their money. If the hon. Member for Totnes does not accept that, certainly the purchasing company recognised it through its undertaking, which has been quoted several times and was last quoted by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey and which seems to me of very great significance.
When the Hotel York Limited was inducing shareholders to part with their shares—and we are not dealing with just an ordinary commercial undertaking in which the only interest is the commercial gain of the would-be sellers of their shares—it went out of its way to give an indication that the principles upon which the company had been founded in 1903 would remain sacrosanct. Why did it do that? The reason was, in my view, that the Hotel York Limited recognised that it was dealing with a commercial undertaking which had very special characteristics.
That is my answer to the hon. Member for Totnes when he says that we are dealing with an ordinary land company. It may be that the Hotel York Limited is an ordinary company, but it was not purchasing an ordinary company. It induced the shareholders to part with their shares recognising that this was a special trust or that there was a quasi-fiduciary position with the regard to the company and its shareholders. Therefore, I do not think that we are here dealing with municipalisation or with nationalisation.
I do not believe that there is a political principle involved which would divide the House on this Bill. This is an issue

of a rigid principle that persons have been induced to part with their shares on an undertaking which has been breached—and breached very shortly after purchase. If there is an interest that one should declare, I should say that politically I have very great sympathy with the objectives of Ebenezer Howard. I have always believed in the principle of taxation of land values. I believe it to be a way of returning to the community the benefit which the community has given to the land held by an individual. To that extent, I find myself politically involved in this issue.
The hon. Member for Totnes says that this is a form of municipalisation or nationalisation. It is nothing of the sort. It is an attempt to set up the sort of corporation which was intended by the founder and every subsequent shareholder, and which was the declared intention of the Hotel York Limited, which, by making that undertaking, induced persons to part with their shares. It has nothing to do with nationalisation or municipalisation.
The hon. Gentleman then asked why the Government have not taken over this corporation. I suggest for the same reason that the Labour Government were disinclined so to do in 1948—that they felt that here was a company of a very particular type which was doing an extremely good job of work. I think it is very interesting to note that a Labour Government, which would certainly be far more amenable to any idea of taking over the corporation than the party opposite, or, indeed, my own party, given the facts in 1949, should have said, "We prefer to leave the corporation carrying on as it is." I think that is very significant, and, in a sense, the Government of the day having given their blessing to the continuation of this corporation, subject to the three conditions mentioned, I believe that the present Government have a moral obligation to do all they can to see that this corporation continues.
Then the hon. Gentleman asked about the retrospective nature of this transaction. Again, I think that has been dealt with by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey, when he reverted to the statement made in the spring of 1961 that they were certainly put on their guard, and that, in the event of a sale,


they must realise that they had before them the prospect of a Private Bill.
Now I come to the hon. Member for Carlton, who, with great force, made the point about denying legal rights to one person and giving them by Act of Parliament to another. The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey expressed, and I think the hon. Member for Carlton accepted it, no legal opinion at all whether or not the action of this company, having regard to its undertaking relating to the 1903 principle, was or was not actionable. My own view is that, if not actionable, if it does not constitute "obtaining by false pretences", if it is not misrepresentation, if it is neither of these things, it is certainly very questionable indeed, and, candidly, I hope that a shareholder could consider the possibility of testing this matter and seeking a declaration in the courts.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I should like to answer that, but I will not, because I see that the hon. Gentleman's boast that he would be briefer than me has failed. His fourteen minutes are up.

Mr. Norman Dodds: He has said something, anyway.

Mr. Thorpe: If the hon. Member for Carlton will himself check HANSARD tomorrow, provided that both he and the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey have individual copies, he will see that he spoke for nearly twenty-five minutes. I make no complaint of that, but I have a little more time to go. I can assure the hon. Member that the proof is not out until about midnight.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) is on a most important point, on which we might all wish for some enlightenment, but I understand that he cannot give a legal opinion on the facts now. Nevertheless, would he not agree that if he were asked for advice on what was the best way of achieving the purpose of the community, he would say that individual shareholders seeking damages or something through the courts would not achieve it and that the only way is by promoting a Private Bill?

Mr. Thorpe: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). This is perfectly correct.

While this may be a remedy for an individual shareholder, it would not be possible to create a corporation, such as was envisaged in the original foundation in 1903 and such as was sought by the urban district council in 1948, without a Bill being introduced.
What the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey meant was that this was a valuable subject for a Second Reading debate, but that we could get down to the real details of what happened only if there were a power of cross-examination and calling witnesses before a Select Committee, which would inevitably follow if the Bill were given a Second Reading.
We are dealing with what was a great social experiment. I believe that if the shareholders had been told that the purchasing company was going to breach the undertaking which it had given—that the principles of 1903 would be respected—they would never have parted with their shares. They were not interested in mere commercial gain. If they were so commercially minded, it seems strange that they should have voted for such a large increase in the rates.
I believe that they have done the right thing by petitioning the House to have this grievance arighted. It is right that we in the House should see that a very grave injustice is put right. For those reasons, I should like to see this corporation set up. I believe that the Bill is the only way whereby that can be done, and I very much hope that the House will overwhelmingly vote to give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.16 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): It may be convenient if I briefly express the Government's view of the Bill. We have had an admirable debate in which the facts and the arguments have been plainly put, and we are all under a debt, I am sure that all hon. Members will agree, for the speech of my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel).
Clearly, important issues are involved both for Letchworth and Hotel York, and there are some issues of a general nature. The crucial question is whether sufficient reason has been given to deny the promoters of the Bill a detailed


scrutiny in a Select Committee of the complex issues involved. In my view, no such justification for such a denial has been made, and, without presuming to comment now on the many complex issues involved, I offer to the House the Government's view that the right course is to send the Bill to a Select Committee where, through cross-examination and in other ways, it can receive the close examination which the importance of the issues deserve.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: We are all very glad to hear the advice which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Of course they are.

Mr. Stewart: I said that we were all very glad.

Mr. Hirst: No.

Mr. Stewart: All what the scholars call nemine contradicente, except for the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst).
I am sure that we can all join in congratulating the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) on his speech. It was an admirable speech, both in manner and content, and he brought out what is cardinal to the whole argument—the principles which have underlain Letchworth Garden City from the time of its foundation.
I do not propose to weary the House by rehearsing the arguments. What the principles were has been made clear enough—it was to be unified ownership and there was to be limitation of dividends and, linked with that and as a result of that principle, the increasing value of the land due to development was to accrue to the community in Letchworth as a whole.
We shall all take the view that those principles were good. Whatever views one might hold about political and economic matters in general, I think that we would all be prepared to say that it is a good and praiseworthy thing to be able to get people to get together and invest their money in a company from which the return will be a good deal less than from an ordinary commercial transaction and in which they invest in

order to be able to bring into existence something like the Garden City of Letchworth.
I understand and respect the misgivings felt by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). I shall address myself to them. The hon. Gentleman questioned whether the company in its original form could be described as a trust. Neither he nor I is a lawyer. We will not bandy legal terms with each other. However, I think he will agree with me that a company which from the start clearly did not appeal to the ordinary natural motive of an investor to get a good return on his money but put that only in second place and put in first place the development of a garden city is a company of a very different kind from the ordinary commercial company. Whether it is called a trust or not, it is very much in a class by itself. I am not sure that the word "unique" is fully justified, but very nearly.
This is the kind of company we are dealing with. It is partly because we are dealing with a company which had that original intention that the hon. Gentleman's fears
of this Bill creating a precedent are not well founded. There are very few enterprises, if any, whose origin was in nature similar to the origin of First Garden City Limited, Letch-worth. It is because it had those origins that the Bill is now before the House. It could not be quoted as a precedent for interfering with the operations of ordinary commercial companies.
Another reason why the Bill cannot be regarded as creating a dangerous precedent was brought out by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). This is the very grave and serious breach of faith committed by Hotel York Limited, on the question whether it would preserve a unified estate. In how many cases in future will the House ever have laid before it such clear and undoubted evidence that a breach of faith was committed, something in which in the interests of the good repute of commercial transactions and private enterprise as a whole it is desirable that the House should intervene? This is another reason why no precedent will be created by the Bill.
Nobody disputes that there was such a breach of faith. Once again I shall not attempt to advance legal arguments.


I am not qualified to do so. Whether any of the shareholders have a right of legal action or not, any ordinary, decent person will say that for a body to declare plainly and emphatically that it intends to preserve the estate as a unified estate and then almost the moment it has the estate in its hands to behave in exactly the opposite manner is a contemptible and dishonourable transaction, whether it is illegal or actionable or not. This is another factor which makes this situation unique.
A third thing which makes it unique is the point so well brought out by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford about the exceptional position of the lessees at Letchworth. I commend this consideration to the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn). Their rights, the rights they had excellent reason to expect, will be very gravely interfered with if something like the Bill does not proceed.

Sir K. Pickthorn: They are not legal rights.

Mr. Stewart: I will come to that point later.

Sir K. Pickthorn: The word "excellent" is not quite fair. The point is whether they are legal or non-legal.

Mr. Stewart: The lessees had every reason to suppose that they were in a certain position. One aspect of the position was this. If they wanted to make extensions or alterations to the property which had been erected on the land they had leased, they had to obtain the consent of the company. It was always the practice that in deciding whether to give or withhold consent the company simply considered sound planning considerations and the welfare of the estate. The granting or withholding of this consent can be used as a lever to get more money out of the lessees. But that is what is happening to them now that the property has passed into the hands of Hotel York.
Large number of people have become lessees at Letchworth on a clear understanding, going back for many years, that they were not to be treated on these purely commercial principles. That foundation of all their enterprise is to be taken away. That is not found normally

in commercial transactions of this kind and in arrangements for ownership of land. This factor also makes this situation unique. I would ask the hon. Member for Totnes to weigh these matters up and to recognise that the Bill cannot really be represented as a dangerous precedent. The circumstances with which it deals are totally unlike any others with which the House make conceivably be asked to deal.
We all believe that the principle that inspired the creation of the First Garden City Ltd., was a good principle. We should like to see that principle maintained. The only reason I think the House has been asked to pass this Bill is because something of this sort seems now to be the only way in which those principles can be maintained.
As the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) pointed out, the matter was considered in 1949. Can we preserve these principles without a sort of a public take-over of Letchworth Garden City? Lord Silkin rightly decided that if the principles could be maintained without interfering with the status of the company—it was a unique status, not completely private enterprise and not taken over by a public body—it should be done. That was the basis of the arrangement that he reached with the company.
If it were possible today to maintain the original principles of the Garden City without legislative arrangements, I believe that all of us on both sides of the House would be glad to do so. It might involve perhaps for the more zealously partisan on both sides some sacrifice of ideas on which they were keen but we should be glad to meet on that common ground.
Now, as a result of the actions of the Hotel York, we are put in a position in which we cannot preserve the original principles, which I believe commend themselves to everybody in the House, without a Bill of this kind. That is why I am sure the Minister is right to say that we should certainly take the first step of giving it a Second Reading. I think, too, that when the Committee come to consider the details of the Bill they will find that, by and large, it is a workable Bill. I do not think that the Minister would have given the limited and Second Reading approval which he


gave—I am trying to represent him accurately—if he had thought that in those parts of the Bill which touch on local government, the actual appointment of the commission and the relation between the commission and the local council, if there was anything unworkable or bad in principle. I commend that again to the hon. Member for Totnes who had doubts about those aspects of the Bill. I believe that it is an equitable Bill.
I should like to say a word on the question of compensation. The Hotel York is to get for it a sum of money which will be in its full, fair value on the understanding that it was going to treat the estate in a way that it said that it would treat it. Could anything be fairer? What worries the hon. Member for Carlton is what, if he will allow me, I will call the pound of flesh argument. He says, in effect, "Never mind whether they broke a gentleman's agreement or not". The sole question that matters to him is, had they a legal right?

Sir K. Pickthorn: Not that matters to me but that matters to the law, which is not the same thing.

Mr. Stewart: When the hon. Gentleman was dealing with this part of his argument he reminded me of an undergraduate who has attended the first of a series of lectures on political science and has allowed the subject matter of the first lecture to dominate his mind without considering that there may be other matters to be brought into the argument. He argues that the foundation of all civilised States has been respect for legal rights. I leave with the hon. Gentleman this thought. If any State finds itself so unable progressively to alter its law that it does not keep in touch with honesty, with justice and with the needs of the time, that State perishes. To say that respect for the law is all without asking oneself whether the law concerns itself with equity and justice is to take an elementary, incomplete and half-baked view of the matter.
I believe, therefore, that for the preservation of the principles which, I believe, commend themselves to the whole House, a Bill of this kind is necessary. It is a workable Bill. It is a fair Bill. It is a Bill in the interests of

reputable commercial transactions as a whole. The clear demonstration to the business world that the kind of thing it is proposed to do to Letchworth Garden City cannot be done will be salutary and will, I believe, be welcomed by everyone in the business world who wishes to maintain standards of fair and honourable dealing. The House ought to be prepared to say that there are some things in this country which money cannot buy.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I have to ask for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, because I have laryngitis. For the same reason, I shall speak for only a few minutes and not say as much as I had earlier hoped to say.
I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). In spite of all that I have heard, I feel that there is at stake a principle which I still hold dear. It is not a matter of who founded the company, what the terms of the company were, what the terms afterwards were or what the circulars were. If there is anything wrong in all these matters disclosed at a later stage—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) drew attention to them—there are legal interests to deal with them. This is not the place to put that sort of matter right.
I believe that the suggestion that a Bill would be promoted was made before the York Hotel people acquired control. I believe that that is correct. If it is, a great deal of the argument I have heard this evening falls to the ground. It is built upon a prejudice, rightly or wrongly, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it does not matter in the least who these people are. I am not in the least interested in whether they are good or bad people. It does not interest me a bit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That has nothing whatever to do with the argument about whether we should give power to someone, in effect, to municipalise a private company.
An enormous amount of prejudice has been built up about the company. It may be right, but the prejudice is there. I am informed that the proposal to bring forward the Bill was actually on the stocks, so to speak, before the York


Hotel people acquired control of the company. If that is correct, as I believe it is, the prejudice is thrown right out of court, quite apart from being rather indecent, anyway. That puts that squarely on the point.
I do not share the argument advanced by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) about retrospection. I cannot understand the argument about it being undesirable and that people must protect themselves, or that they might have to sell this, that or the other. If they have a legal right to sell those things, is it not right that they should do so? If they have, why should we say that it is right for someone else who has an eye on it to take powers to make sure that this does not happen?
What sort of Socialism, or what else is
it, that is being advanced by that argument? I really do not know. If it was right at the time when it was done to sell some of that property, then, obviously, it was right to do it. I have personally voted against every part of retrospective legislation in this House from whatever quarter it has come, and on that ground alone I will continue to do so.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I very much welcome this debate so that we can see just what the Bill is about but, also, what it is not about. First, however, the majority of hon. Members will want to pay honour to Ebenezer Howard and will not want to bury his ideas. We want to set the seal of achievement on his pioneering work. He was a man of extraordinary intuition and judgment and he synthesised several different social approaches to the problems of his day, particularly the problem of the standards of housing since the days of the Industrial Revolution. His ideals have, in fact, been translated into three-dimensional reality, namely, Letchworth.
Ebenezer Howard was an inventor and not a theorist and Letchworth's importance is not in its minutiae, but in the great idea that lies behind it. It was founded sixty years ago to prove that idea and I want to read to the House some words of Sir Frederick Osborn who, in 1944, showed how these ideas had stood the test of time and the

cross-examination of public controversy. He wrote:
All its essential elements stand: moderate sized industrial and trading towns in close contact with a surrounding agricultural countryside, each a healthy, well-equipped and coherent community; zoning of areas within each town for ready access between homes, work-places, shops and cultural centres; limitation of density to safeguard light, gardens and recreation space, but not exaggerated to the pitch of urban diffusion; civic design aiming at harmony rather than standardisation; planned internal and external communications; and unified site-ownership coupled with leaseholds, reconciling public interests with freedom of choice and enterprise.
It is the validity of that idea which we are discussing tonight. Ebenezer Howard's work was not, in fact, wholly original. It may be apposite to say that it was foreshadowed by that many-sighted technician of 400 years ago, Leonardo da Vinci. He proposed to end the congestion and squalor of Milan by building ten cities with a population of 30,000 inhabitants with complete separation of pedestrian and horse traffic and with gardens attached to the municipal irrigation system. But Ebenezer Howard was the first person to do anything about this idea.
We have already heard about Howard's book, Garden Cities of Tomorrow and it is perhaps worth recollecting that Lewis Mumford wrote of Howard:
Howard's mind was the English mind at its best, always in touch with the practicable, always in sight of the ideal.
In writing his book Howard included these words, which are very relevant to the point tonight:
…by buying the land before a new value is given to it by migration, the migrating people obtain a site at an extremely low figure, and secure the coming increment for themselves and those who come after them…
It was to forward these ideas that Letch-worth Garden City was founded in 1903, and the principles of the book were specifically referred to in the memorandum of association, in the third article. It was founded as a social experiment and not as a financial speculation.
Therefore, First Garden City never was an ordinary property company. I ask my hon. Friends who have been opposing the Bill to consider this. The fact that it was not an ordinary property company has always been realised and


reaffirmed. For instance, in 1904 we had this in a memorandum to shareholders:
The Garden City Company … is not entering into a land speculation; it has no desire to reap for itself the profit which will accrue from the conversion of agricultural land into building land and from mere building land into the site of a well-developed town, and it has carefully deprived itself and its successors of the power to do so.
That was the spirit, and those were the terms, in the days of the founders.
In 1909, a booklet was issued which reiterated this and added:
As to surplus profits … they will go to the lessees and tenants in one way or another.
In 1913, there was a circular to manufacturars which referred to the balance of profits being
devoted to the benefit of the town or its inhabitants.
In 1951, there was a further booklet, and I will read some extracts from it because these are the undertakings which caused manufacturers and residents to go and live and work in Letchworth. The first is:
The principal object of the company is to create a town for the benefit of the community.
The second is:
… there is no incentive (as in ordinary land development schemes) for the company to work the leasehold system to the detriment of the residents…
The third is:
The company's position is therefore that of trustee rather than that of private landlord.
Therefore, we can see quite clearly that it is quite impossible to say that First Garden City was an ordinary property company. No ordinary property company ever issued literature of this sort.
I now want to come nearer to the present time. I come to 1960. On 21st September, the chairman wrote to the stockholders in these terms:
the principle of the company's undertaking ultimately being publicly owned has been inherent throughout the whole life of the company and such principle was ratified again in 1949.
On 7th October, the chairman said at an extraordinary general meeting:
I have only one thing to say and that is that I do not consider that First Garden City is an ordinary property company.
On 22nd November, the chairman wrote again to the stockholders and said:

Your board regards the preservation of the town as a single entity in one freehold ownership as essential in the interests of the company.
In view of statements of this character, I cannot see how it can be said that First Garden City was or is an ordinary property company.
I turn now to the 1949 resolutions which have been much discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said that the then Minister of Town and Country Planning, now Lord Silkin, stated that he had to twist the arm of the company to get these resolutions out of the company, in particular the resolution approving the principle of the ultimate transfer to a public body.
But when the then chairman of the company, Sir Eric Macfadyen, sent a memorandum to stockholders about the resolution he said:
…resolution (3) comprises a formal affirmation of the intention that the town of Letchworth shall eventually pass into public ownership: an intention which has been implied through the history of the company. Your directors consequently recommend without reservation the adoption of resolution …(3).
I cannot see how this could possibly have been written if the then Minister had been twisting the company's arm.
But tied up with the whole intention of ultimate public ownership has always been the peculiar Letchworth leasehold system. I think that it is worth reiterating just what that system is. It has always operated in a way so that when a lease comes to be renewed or extended—and very many have been—account is taken only of site value and no account at all is taken of the value of buildings built upon it at the expense of the lessee. In this way lessees at Letchworth feel that they are, in fact, as safe as freeholders.
This is very important to those who worry whether the Bill strikes against a property-owning democracy. They have the added advantage that the general amenity is strongly protected by the positive measures arising from the whole freehold being held by one owner. That brings much more positive protection, if I may say so, than town and country planning legislation. I dare say that many hon. Members know of freeholds held by individuals, house freeholds, where suddenly, in the back garden, bungalows or new houses can be built


and density increased, to the detriment of the neighbours. But at Letchworth there is an added protection against this.
It is also true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said, that the 1949 resolutions altered the winding-up provisions. As he said, the 1947 Act had vested development value in the State. Therefore, the town could not have that development value any more. According to the resolution, shareholders were to have the right to the net assets on winding-up.
But in 1954 the 1947 Act was reversed, but at that time the company did not reinstate its original winding-up provisions. This was the beginning of a leakage which went on for some time and led to a certain state of affairs to which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes referred. First of all, in 1956 the limitation on annual dividends was removed, and, in fact, a bonus issue was made. There were two reasons for this. The first was to defeat an intended take-over at that time. The second was to counter the effects of inflation on all the shareholders who had invested their money long ago. These were the reasons for this action in 1956.
In 1957, the winding-up provisions were amended in favour of the town. At that time, as things stood, if the company had been wound up the town would have got nothing; but a new provision was made that the town would benefit to the extent of at least 10 per cent. of the assets on winding-up. It has been said that it is peculiar that this resolution of 1957 was not opposed. The reason for this was that it was part of a rapprochement by the company to reinstate some of the town's rights which it had lost in those days since 1954. Peace, however, was not achieved by these moves to avert the onslaught of further outside pressures.
I turn now to what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) said about everything which had been said in this debate in favour of the Bill being bunk because already there was consideration of a Bill being promoted before Hotel York came on the scene. The situation was that in September, 1960, the Raglan Group, who had become shareholders, demanded that First Garden City should be run as an ordinary property company. They were

at least straightforward about their intentions. Their intentions were, however, defeated.
But this alarmed the people of Letchworth and the Urban District Council entered into conversations with the company to see whether something might not be done to implement the principle of ultimate transfer to a public body. This was done to try to stabilise the position.
It is true, therefore, that something was afoot in a tentative way before Hotel York came on the scene, but this in no way invalidates what has since been said. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot said, it was after Hotel York had taken control that a public meeting was demanded by a private citizen in Letchworth and was very fully attended. It was only at this meeting that the council formally announced its intention to promote a Private Bill. Had it been able to reach agreement with the company, it might have been that no Private Bill would have been necessary. Hotel York came on the scene, however, overtaking these conversations.
We have heard of the offer that the chairman of Hotel York made in her letter to shareholders and I will not repeat it. It is, however, clear that Hotel York, as the controlling interest of First Garden City, regards First Garden City as an ordinary property company. This has been agreed by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes.
I wish to read one extract from the latest annual report, dated 13th March of this year. This annual report makes it perfectly clear. It states:
The vast majority of the present shareholders have invested in this company to obtain the maximum income on their investment, and it is the Board's policy to act in the interests of these shareholders".
This much is clearly admitted.
The change of policy had already become clear from the following events. The first is the annual general meeting on 16th February last year, at which Colonel Post, who was on the board in pursuance of the 1949 resolution, revealed that he had been asked to resign. He did not do so at that time, but several months later he did. I understand that he felt it impossible for him effectively to promote the interests of Letchworth any more. His resignation was followed


in June, 1961, by the resignation of the only local director, Mr. Bennett. In October, 1961, Mr. Edge, the former chairman, resigned after thirty years on the board. Clearly, something was afoot.
In July, 1961, as we have been told, 14 acres of freehold were sold off, thus driving a wedge into the principle of the unified estate. In November, 1961, selected lessees were offered the freehold of their property. This, clearly, would have driven in the wedge further, but, as far as I know, nobody has accepted. If people did accept, under the Bill they might have had the freehold reacquired from them at fair market value under the Land Compensation Act, 1961. The real reason why they did not accept it, I believe, as has been mentioned in the debate, that the price asked of them meant that they would pay again for that for which they had already paid, namely, the buildings on the land.
It is not at all surprising that the lessees prefer the maintenance of the original leasehold system, because in the Letchworth system the usual disadvantages are absent but the standards of amenity of the town as a whole are ensured. I have no doubt that the people of Letchworth prefer this system. It is the basis on which residents, traders and manufacturers came to Letchworth and invested their money.
The fourth change of policy arises from the fact that leases contain covenants whereby, if there is a change in the use of the land or an extension is to be built, say, to a block of flats, the permission of the company has to be obtained. In this way, the standards can be maintained. This method has never before been used to extract further ground rent.
I want, however, to mention one example. One lessee, whose ground rent was £70 a year, wanted to change the use of his land and was told that he could do so provided he paid an additional ground rent of £5,000 per annum. I think that that figure is enough without my quoting any more.
I will not go through the various Clauses of the Bill, but I do want to refer to Clause 16 which, it has been said, is retrospective. I think it important to understand what this Clause is

about. It is not mandatory, but it does allow the corporation to acquire land sold by the company since 20th July in accordance with the public warning given on 20th July, and the provision was to prevent the estate from being dissipated under the eyes of Parliament, as it were, while we were still discussing this Bill. It is not mandatory upon the corporation, but I understand that if both First Garden City and the new freeholders who got the 14 acres so wish, as far as the promoters are concerned they will in no way insist upon the operation of this Clause. I hope that that will satisfy any hon. Members who have any lingering doubts about the retrospective provisions of this Bill.
I will now say what this Bill is not. This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Totnes. It is not municipalisation. Control of the corporation is taken out of the hands of the urban district council. It is not nationalisation, but rather only an implementation of the company's inherent intentions. It is not contrary to the ideals of a property-owning democracy. It protects the interests of the lessees. It is not unfair to shareholders, because it will, in fact, compensate them on the very basis of the raison d'etre of the company. As to the retrospective Clause, so-called, if there is any retrospection I am certain that what I have just said should relieve any doubts.
The case of Letchworth is unique. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) dealt with this. It is very different from all the others, including Welwyn Garden City and Hampstead Garden Suburb. There is no other such town with a population anything like approaching 30,000 in which there is a virtual monopoly of the freehold. The Bill neither follows precedent, nor can it set a precedent. It must be judged upon its merits, and that is the spirit in which my constituents look to the House tonight.
The issue is not simply one of public enterprise versus private enterprise. Ebenezer Howard and those who supported him certainly believed in private enterprise, and they believed that in Letchworth it could be devoted in a specific way to fulfilling the public good. I believe—and I commend this to my hon. Friends—that harm is done to the


private sector by any failure to stand by publicised intentions for the public good. The intention of the Bill is to remove a whole town from the mercy of speculators and to secure strong and continuous management divorced from political influence.
That the Bill should be given a Second Reading tonight is due to the memory of Ebenezer Howard, Neville, Lever-hulme, and the many hundreds who subscribed money for an ideal, as well as to

the many thousands who have come to live in and build the town. It is to keep faith with those who pioneered Letchworth, and those who made the garden city what it is today, that I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 13.

Division No. 131.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Fitch, Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Albu, Austen
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Loveys, Walter H.


Allason, James
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacArthur, Ian


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gammans, Lady
McCann, John


Aitken, W. T.
Gibson-Watt, David
MacColl, James


Awbery, Stan
Ginsburg, David
Mclnnes, James


Balniel, Lord
Glover, Sir Douglas
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Batsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Goodhew, Victor
McLarent, Martin


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Gough, Frederick
McLeavy, Frank


Beaney, Alan
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)


Bell, Ronald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles
Manuel, Archie C.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mapp, Charles


Biffen, John
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Biggs-Davison, John
Gunter, Ray
Marsh, Richard


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Blyton, William
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bottomley, A.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bourne-Avton, A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Millan, Bruce


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mills, Stratton


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Milne, Edward


Brockway, A. Fenner
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mitchlson, G. R.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hastings, Stephen
Moody, A. S.


Broughtort, Dr. A. D. D.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
More Jasper (Ludlow)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Moyle, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hendry, Forbes
Mulley, Frederick


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Nabarro, Gerald


Bullard, Denys
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Burden, F. A.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Oram, A. E.


Callaghan, James
Hilton, A. V.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Hobson, Sir John
Owen. Will


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hocking, Philip N.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Holman, Percy
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Chataway, Christopher
Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cliffe, Michael
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Corfleld, F. V.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pentland, Norman


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Percival, Ian


Critchley, Julian
Hunter, A. E.
Peyton, John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pitt, Miss Edith


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Darling, George
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Prentice, R. E.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pym, Franels


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rankin, John


Dempsey, James
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rawllnson, Peter


Diamond, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Redhead, E. C.


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, H.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Kenyon, Clifford
Ridsdale, Julian


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rippon, Geoffrey


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kirk, Peter
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Errington, Eir Eric
Lawson, George
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Evans, Albert
Leather, E. H. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fernyhough, E.
Ledger, Ron
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fisher, Nigel
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Ross, William




Boyle, Charles (Salford, West)
Taverne, D.
Warbey, William


Shaw, M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Shepherd, William
Taylor, Frank (M'ch's'tr, Moss, Side)
Whitelaw, William


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Temple, John M.
Wigg, George


Skeffington, Arthur
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wilkins W. A.


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Willey, Frederick


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Small, William
Thomson, C. M. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thornton, Ernest
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Spriggs, Leslie
Thorpe, Jeremy
Winterbottom, R. E.


Steele, Thomas
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wise, A. R.


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Woof, Robert


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Woollam, John


Stodart, J. A.
Turner, Colin
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Zilliacus, K.


Studholme, Sir Henry
Wade, Donald



Swingler, Stephen
Walder, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Symonds, J. B.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Mr. Maddan and Dr. Stress.




NOES


Cooke, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Talbot, John E.


Curran, Charles
Marlowe, Anthony
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Dance, James
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Duncan, Sir James
Pott, Percivall



Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Roots, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Mawby and Mr. Hirst.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed,

PEDESTRIANS (SAFETY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I wish to raise tonight the problem of people who live beside busy roads in the country just outside London. There are some arterial roads on which traffic is scarcely less dense than the traffic of Central London, and, unlike London transport, does not frequently halt at street intersections so that pedestrians can conveniently cross the road. On the contrary, it is travelling at speeds of 50 to 80 miles an hour without check over long distances.
How to cross such roads on foot is a problem which baffles an ever higher proportion of the local population as the tide of vehicles swells and swells. I wish to raise this as a general problem, because it exists as a general problem. Even as little as ten years ago, it did not exist on any remotely comparable scale. There was then on some roads a lot of fast traffic, but there were also a lot of gaps in that traffic. Now, on many more roads than then, there are, at some periods of the day, no gaps at all in the stream of vehicles. The average speed is even higher and the variety of speeds confusing.
Not even those in the prime of life can safely launch themselves against a roaring torrent of lorries, vans, motor cars, motor cycles and scooters whose assorted speeds cover the range from 20 to 80 m.p.h. The older and less nimble members of the community are now without hope of crossing such roads at any time during the day or, indeed, during the early evening.
Since many of our main roads go straight through the middle of large communities, a large social problem has come into existence. I want the Minister to tell us how his Department's mind is working upon this and to assure us, if he can, that the problem is not developing faster than its plans to deal with it.
I raise this problem because my constituency is typical of the areas that suffer in this way. We have two trunk roads running east and west across the constituency—the A.4, the Great West Road, and the A.40, which is the Oxford-South Wales-Fishguard Trunk Road. The A.4 raises problems enough. I have troubled my right hon. Friend before, and shall have to do so again, about the difficulty of crossing the road at Taplow on the A.4. The A.40 is even worse.
Last August, the average weight of traffic in a 16-hour day on the A.4 at Colnbrook was 21,000. On the A.40, at Redhill, just west of Denham, the average figure is no less than 29,900. There are no figures for the stretch


through Denham before some traffic turns off up the North Orbital Road, which is just north of Redhill, but I believe it to be well over 30,000.
At present, the road from Denham to Beaconsfield is just a 30 ft. undivided road. My right hon. Friend, who is well aware of his Department's Memorandum 780, will not wish to deny that a road with this weight of traffic should be, according to standards laid down by his Department, a dual carriageway, with three lanes on each side.
Denham and Gerrards Cross stand on the A.40 and develop on both sides of it. In both places, people are separated by the road from schools, churches, shops and the general facilities of a community. In places of this sort, one cannot duplicate all the facilities on each side of the road, as my right hon. Friend will understand. At Denham, some contribution to the problem will be made by the installation of traffic lights at the junction of the North Orbital Road and the A.40, but that will not solve it, because there is to be no all-red phase at the traffic lights. On the contrary, there will be three permanent green phases, one for all traffic going west along the A.40, and the other two for traffic turning left into and out of the North Orbital Road, so that it will not be possible for the active pedestrian to nip smartly across at the traffic lights.
I am not suggesting that the right solution is necessarily to have an all-red phase at the traffic lights which are being installed at this junction. On such a heavily overloaded road, the resultant congestion might become unmanageable. The right solution might be a tunnel or an overbridge, and, to some extent, I leave it to my right hon. Friend which solution he will give us. A quarter of a mile up the North Orbital Road, in the northern part of Denham, a tunnel has been approved, to be built next year, to solve the same problem in that part of the village, and I hope that my right hon. Friend can help us by giving speedy consideration to the question of grant when this proposal comes up to him, as I am sure it will do very shortly. This is an urgent requirement.
At Gerrards Cross, we have the same problem of communities living on both sides of the road, with people who cannot go to church and children crossing

the road to go to school, and the position is one of the most extreme difficulty, when people sometimes have to wait ten minutes or a quarter of an hour to get across the road.
For a long time, people have been discussing the alternatives which are possible, whether it will be a tunnel or an overbridge, and I understand that in the next few weeks estimates will be coming up from the Buckinghamshire County Councill to my right hon. Friend—one estimate for a tunnel and one for an overbridge at the "French Horn", at Gerrards Cross. I hope that he will give these his most careful and urgent consideration, because this is a problem which has been outstanding for a very long time there, and which has caused the greatest anxiety among my constituents.
The other point I want to raise concerns Church Road in Iver Heath, an extension of the A.421 which runs south through Iver Heath. This is, I believe, a marginal case for a pedestrian crossing, but the county council thinks there should be a pedestrian crossing in Iver Heath, and the Minister has decided to refuse it. I can see that it is marginal, and the traffic on that road is very heavy, not like a trunk road, about 6,000 vehicles a day use it, but with a more marked morning and evening peak. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully the problem which is raised there, because somehow, and at some time, we must find a solution to it as the problem develops and gets worse, as I am afraid it will. I know that his Department will watch this very sympathetically.
All these measures which I have
mentioned can only be palliatives, because the A.40 is now a grossly overloaded road, and, therefore, inevitably we will have to drive a new motor road south of it in the fairly near future. I have heard that within the last week or two my right hon. Friend has authorised the taking of an aerial survey of the proposed site of that road, and when he gets the result of that survey I hope that he will give it rather higher priority than it has had up to now, because of the quite unexpected growth of the traffic on the A.40, which has been a tremendous problem to us. I hope that he


will think about the project for a motorway independently of that, and will press on with mitigating measures on the A.40, both for traffic along the length of the road from Denham to Beaconsfield, and for solving the particular local problem of how people can got across that maelstrom of a road without being killed in the process. If he can do that, he would certainly earn the gratitude of my constituents and myself.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. A. R. Wise: I should like, first, to express my deep gratitude to my hon. Friend for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for his masterly effort at brevity and leaving me a few minutes to reinforce his eloquent plea for some action on very crowded roads.
When a road is improved, the first thought should be for the safety of pedestrians. Roads pass through inhabited areas and often divide communities into halves, between which communication is essential. It is not right that that should result in danger to life. When increasing the speed of traffic, surely we can ensure protection for the footgoer. The Ministry of Transport has power to check speed and has resources to build safe crossings, but it does not use them and people are, therefore, put in peril.
My constituency is in the geographical centre of England and is, therefore, traversed by a number of roads which
are rapidly being improved into speedways. I will give only one example, but I assure hon. Members that there are others. The A.45 connecting Birmingham and Coventry with the East and the South and with the M.1—which is very important—cuts the village of Ryton-on-Dunsmore in half. On the north of the road are the church, the post office, the only butcher's shop and 32 children of primary school age. On the south are the primary school and the rest of the village. The older children living on the south of the road have to cross the road every morning to catch a bus to their secondary school.
Incidentally, 117 new houses are about to be built on the south side of the road, many of them earmarked for elderly people who will be cut off from the church, the post office and the only butcher's shop. The road has become a clearway and therefore more dangerous

than ever. I sometimes cross the road, and I know.
Through the hours of day a vehicle goes through every four seconds at a normal speed of 50 m.p.h. or more; in other words, 100 yards between vehicles, which is not even braking distance. On crossing from the south it is impossible even to see vehicles coming in order to find a gap in the traffic. In three years one person has been killed every year and two have already been killed this year.
I have been writing to the Ministry asking for an underpass, which is the only solution, and for temporary measures to ensure safety while the underpass is built. Nothing has happened yet and I am afraid that my next letter will ask how many people have to be killed before something is done. I am expecting any moment to have the news of yet another fatal accident on this stretch of road. The underpass could be begun in April—the county council has said as much—and the temporary expedients could be undertaken at once. I suggest a speed limit, or something of the kind, while the underpass is being built.
Using this as an example, the point I want to make is that these measures should be taken before and not after footgoers have been killed. Whenever a village is
divided by a speedway, underpasses should be part of the original programme of improvement. I know that that is expensive, but it depends at what price we value human life. I am told that this underpass would cost £20,000. In three years five people have been killed, 19 seriously injured and 38 slightly injured. All future plans for road improvement should automatically include provision for the absolute safety of pedestrians. If that makes the road too expensive, we should do without the road until we can afford it.

10.25 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am sure the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for raising this subject tonight. Perhaps I can first deal briefly with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) about the A.45 to Ryton-on-Dunsmore. We have taken a count of the vehicles. We have


looked at the matter carefully from the traffic point of view and considered whether the provision of a subway is justified. We asked the county surveyor to make a census of the pedestrian traffic across the trunk road. This has been done. The results confirm the need for a subway.

Mr. Wise: I am grateful.

Mr. Marples: I am glad to say that it will be included in our programme for the financial year 1962–63. The work will be started as soon as the final details can be prepared. For once I have satisfied somebody.

Mr. Wise: Indeed.

Mr. Marples: Having won my hon. Friend's applause, I shall now earn his condemnation. I do not think that it would serve a useful purpose to impose a 50 or a 40 m.p.h. speed limit, even as a temporary measure, as he suggested. The built-up area fronts less than 300 yards of the trunk road. It would be difficult to enforce a restriction on so short a length. If it could be imposed, enforced and obeyed, it would be done, but it is one of those things that a motorist will not do. A motorist looks for himself and says, "This is ridiculous. I will not obey". This is the difficulty we face. This human complication and factor must be taken into account.
I hope that I have dealt reasonably satisfactorily with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby in the centre of England. There are many more important places in the centre of England, such as South Buckinghamshire and Wallasey. Wallasey is a very important place. There are very shrewd people there who send me back to the House regularly. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South raised a number of points. I tell him right away that I know the area intimately. He will agree that I do. He raised, generally, points of pedestrian safety. In particular, he raised a matter which affects his own constituency. It would only be courteous to him for me to deal with the particular points of his own constituency first and then, if I have time before the debate ends, I can go on to deal with the general problems.
He was right in saying that excessive speed in a motor car is all right for the

driver, but it is very difficult for the elderly person with brittle limbs and failing eyesight who is a little tottery. My hon. Friend said that a man in the prime of life would have difficulty in crossing. He will know, because he is in the prime of life. I am a little older. I could not get across with the same agility as my hon. Friend. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is becoming more and more difficult to cross trunk roads outside London. However, if a trunk road goes through a large community—that is, a built-up area—there will be a speed limit imposed, as there ought to be.
The new Road Traffic Bill, which has received a Second Reading and will go into Committee after Easter, contains a provision designed to secure the strict enforcement of the speed limit. From what my hon. Friend has said tonight I know that we have his support on the enforcement of the speed limit. I shall look forward to his support when we come to the Committee stage.
My hon. Friend mentioned one or two points about the trunk roads in South Buckinghamshire. There are two trunk roads in South Buckinghamshire—the A.4 and the A.40. There are three points on the classified roads, as distinct from trunk roads, where pedestrian difficulties have been under consideration particularly. First, the A.40, which is outside my hon. Friend's constituency, but is still important.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Only the part which runs through Slough is outside my constituency. The road on either side of Slough is in my constituency.

Mr. Marples: That part is excluded from my hon. Friend's constituency which is, no doubt, an unfortunate fact from the point of representation in the House.
Most of the A.4 in the County runs through the Borough of Slough. The Slough Experiment included special measures for pedestrians, and they are reasonably well catered for. With the opening of Slough by-pass in the spring of 1963, conditions on the by-passed length of A.4 will be even more improved.
I now come to the A.40, which is in my hon. Friends constituency—all of it. We


acknowledge freely that there is a pedestrian problem on those parts of the A.40 whore there is substantial development on either side. From my experience I am certain that this is so, especially on fine Sundays in the summer and at Bank Holidays when traffic is very heavy. It is almost terrifying there. The most difficult sections for pedestrians crossing in sizeable numbers are at Tailing End and at Gerrards Cross, between the traffic signalled junction with A.332—the Windsor Road—and the junction with Fulmer Road—at the "French Horn". Everything seems to be designated by the titles of public houses in these enlightened days.
At Tailing End work on an improved lay-out and installation of traffic signals and central refuges at the A.40-A.413—Tatling End to Aylesbury Road—is now well advanced. The completed scheme will be of very great assistance to pedestrians crossing at this point, and the traffic signals will create breaks in the traffic flow, thereby helping pedestrians to cross the trunk road elsewhere in the vicinity of Tatling End. My hon. Friend referred to the North Orbital Road, and I can inform him that similar improvements are in progress at the junction of the A.40 with the North Orbital Road, A.412.
My horn. Friend also mentioned that proposals would be conning forward to the Ministry, and he asked if I would consider them sympathetically.

Mr. Ronald Bell: It is in respect of the junction at Gerrards Cross that my right hon. Friend will be receiving an estimate from the County Council in the next few weeks.

Mr. Marples: I realise that my hon. Friend attaches great importance to this. The pressure he has brought on my Ministry is evidence of that. I can assure him that this will be looked at sympathetically when the application is received.
At the "French Horn" junction at Gerrards Cross a major improvement scheme is being considered for inclusion in the programme for the financial year 1962–63. Alternative schemes are being considered; either the installation of

traffic signals or the construction of a subway. Whichever is adopted will be of considerable benefit to pedestrians wishing to cross the trunk road. If my hon. Friend has any views about this matter I shall be glad to receive his views when we come to the more formulative stage.
I think that, broadly speaking, there are no exceptional difficulties for pedestrians in Beaconsfield on either the trunk road or the classified roads which cross it. Conditions for pedestrians on the whole section of the A.40 westward from Denham roundabout to the east end of the proposed Wycombe by-pass would be much improved by the construction of a new road on a separate alignment. The Buckinghamshire County Council has very recently been asked to arrange for an aerial survey so that such a by-pass may be considered. My hon. Friend has been pressing for this for a long time with his usual persuasiveness and lucidity. I am happy to say that he has been reasonably successful and that we are considering the matter.
I turn now to the other matters. Packhorse Road, on the A.332, is at the shopping centre of Gerrards Cross, and it has been agreed by all concerned that a pedestrian crossing is justified here. However, this site chosen is in conflict with a bus stop. Here we get into the usual difficulties that we always get into. The parish council, although wanting a crossing, is resisting the proposal to shift the bus stop. I should like to enlist my hon. Friend to help me to solve the problem. Normally I take the burden. I never get any credit for all the great works that we in the Ministry propose to do, but get a lot of blame if anything goes wrong. I expect my hon. Friend to put that right himself and shall look forward to his advice and co-operation.
There is another place at Denham Station on the A.412 at the Moorfield Road junction. The difficulties for pedestrians wishing to cross the road have been eased recently by the imposition of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit. So far the period of operation is not sufficiently long to permit a comparison with conditions as they were before the speed limit was imposed.
I am sure I take my hon. Friend with me when I say that it is no good having a speed limit unless it is strictly enforced. Again I look to him to help me in the Committee stage of the new Bill so that we can enforce the speed limit that we in the House decide to impose. I am sure I shall take him with me in that. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) here. I know I shall have him with me too. If we have any difficulties during the Committee stage, I am sure that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South will pair with each other so that we shall have no further trouble,
My hon. Friend asked about a pedestrian crossing at Iver Heath. He recently asked a Question about it. My hon. Friend said tonight that it was a marginal case. The Answer that he was given was that neither the number of pedestrians crossing the road at this point nor the volume of traffic along the road was sufficient to justify a pedestrian crossing. I think that at the moment that is so—my hon. Friend was frank enough to admit that it was marginal—but maybe with the increased number of vehicles coming on the road With our Tory prosperity things will alter. When I look opposite at the "crowded Socialist benches, and the revival of the Liberal Party at Orpington, I am sure that they can make a great contribution to the debate which is now going on. It will be recorded in HANSARD, I hope, that there was not a soul on the Opposition benches or the Liberal benches. Not even the Labour Whip is present. Where he has gone I do not know. I often wish the Whips would go to a certain place. I talking now about our own Whips and not the Opposition Whips. But it is a sad commentary that when we are discussing these great affairs in Buckinghamshire and all these important things are being considered, there is not a soul present on the benches opposite. I am talking to empty benches. If I find it very difficult to continue, it must be because I am almost choked with emotion at the way they have ignored the debate.
One thing I must say is that when we do certain traffic engineering works in a town or in the country—

Mr. Ronald Bell: Before my right hon. Friend concludes, I wonder whether he is able to announce now that he is going to do anything about the authorisation of dual carriageway from Den-ham to Gerrards Cross, which I have always wanted, about which I think he may be ready to announce something.

Mr. Marples: It is almost there, but I would rather not say anything at the moment. Certainly this is a very desirable thing, because from Denham, which I know awfully well, to Gerrards Cross is one of the most difficult sections of the road. It is where a great number of accidents occur. I ask my hon. Friend to be a little patient He is normally very patient. I count him among the most patient of my supporters, and so I hope he will be patient a little longer.
There is something that I must say in the two minutes that remain. When we at the Ministry introduce traffic measures we do not introduce them only to make motor cars go faster. We introduce them to make it safer for pedestrians. This is true. We know the importance of providing adequate facilities for pedestrians, but one thing we must say is this. Pedestrians want two things. First, they want convenience. Secondly, they want safety. A pedestrian gets impatient if he has to wait more than about 20 seconds before he can cross the road. That is what we have found by experiment. The motorist, of course, gets impatient in much less than 20 seconds. But the pedestrian takes 20 seconds.
This is an attitude which is out of keeping with the times we live in. Whether we like it or not, we have to live with the motor car. When we introduce certain of the schemes in London, such as the Tottenham Court Road/Gower Street one-way working scheme, I know it is inconvenient to the pedestrian, but it is safer. In the first six months the accidents to pedestrians were reduced from about 100 to 70. That is a big saving. I know it was inconvenient for the pedestrians, but it saved their lives.
Therefore, I think that in all our traffic engineering work we must do our


best not only to see that the traffic flows smoothly but that the pedestrians have more security.
With that brief answer—I have almost finished my time; there are four or five seconds to go, Mr. Speaker—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House with Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.